or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Terrorists getting their beepbeeps kicked (merged)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Terrorists getting their beepbeeps kicked (merged) - Page 4

post #121 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by New
Are you saying that there is a link of bloodlust between, say, the ETA, people like Thimothy McVeigh, AQ, Kurdish rebels and so on...?

or are we just talking muslims here?

I say again...TROLL.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #122 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's the first I've heard of that. Can you provide some backing for it?

It was on live TV during the first couple of days after the buildings collapsed. You Google, I'll Google, and we'll meet somewhere in the middle.

Here it is.

"Yes, the hand of God is on the arrogant and the oppressor, but that does not change our concern for people."
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #123 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
You mean this?



But of course, the ABB crowd has perverted this to mean that there were no ties to Iraq and Al-Qaeda. My god..it's in the first paragraph, jimmac. Please read more than just what would seem to support your Bush hatred.

Read carefully: Chemicals such as Sarin and Mustard Gas have been found. Warheads have been found. Iraq was trying to buy missile technology from North Korea. In fact, Iraq POSESSED longer range missles than wera llowed by UN resolutions. Iraq had a hatred for the US. Iraq had tried to assasinate a former President, and openly praised the 9/11 attacks. Iraq fired on our aircraft. According to your logic though, one or two chemical warheads launched against the US or Israel would not be enough. How many would be enough? 5? 10? 100?

As for the 9/11 attack and Iraq, you really need to go back and read what I posted. I said that the 9/11 attack changed the way we percieve threats and deal with them. Iraq was one of these threats. On Setember 10th 2001, we didn't need to look at threats like Saddam's Iraq the way we need to now. That was the clear intent of my posts on the topic, though you (as usual) feel it necessary to twist these words and turn them into a personal attack. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.


All of the above while still illustrating that Saddam wasn't a nice person and didn't like us ( as there are many such individuals in the world ) is still a weak case ( at best ) for war.

What was the range of the said missles that Iraq had. If they couldn't reach the continental U.S. it negates your argument.

Tried to assasinate a former president? Remind me please.

------------------------------------------------------------

" I said that the 9/11 attack changed the way we percieve threats and deal with them. "

------------------------------------------------------------

Who decides this you?

I don't think so.

The president?

Not entirely.

In the end it's the good people of the United States. You know the ones that vote the president into office ( or not ).
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #124 of 168
question directed towards those who support the iraq war:

knowing what you know now, do you believe that starting a war in Iraq after 9-11 was the MOST EFFECTIVE way to root out the sort of terrorism that resulted in the WTC attacks? Or would you have preferred focusing our efforts on countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

note that i am not asking if the Iraq war was justified, but if it was the best route to fighting a war on terror.

/genuinely curious
post #125 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'll say this for you...you're good at using a lot of words to make no point whatsoever. We once supported Saddam. Well, no shit pfflam! What would you like to do about that? At the time we saw Iran and the greater of two evils. Perhaps it was a mistake...but I don't see the relevance to today's discussion.

Yes we did support Saddam Hussein for some14 years. We have coddled and supported more evil brutes throughout the world during the last three-quarter century than many people have had hot dinners. Our foreign policy of the past is HIGHLY RELEVANT. If we make shortsighted decisions that aid tyrants, often driven by short term business interests for wellplaced execs, often with resulting longterm damage to US national security, then what can we expect in the long term? (silly question)

But don't forget that the reasons given by the Bush Administration for the war: Two of the many cited, when convenient, were:

(a) Regime Change and liberation: The US, under Carter, both Reagan administrations and the first two years of Bush Sr. supported Saddam Hussein. We cited humanitarian reasons...ie "liberation" (!!) from a tyrant who even killed his own people: [i]This was the period when Saddam Hussein was at his most vicious and bloody ie. when he was allied to the US. Nice.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/scheer/.../index_np.html

Quote:
Sometimes democracy works. Though the wheels of accountability often grind slowly, they also can grind fine, if lubricated by the hard work of free-thinking citizens. The latest example: the release of official documents, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, that detail how the U.S. government under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush nurtured and supported Saddam Hussein despite his repeated use of chemical weapons. The Pentagon wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas. It was just another way of killing people whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference. - - former Defense insider, anonymous.

The work of the National Security Archive, a dogged organization fighting for government transparency, has cast light on the trove of documents that depict in damning detail how the United States, working with U.S. corporations including Bechtel, cynically and secretly allied itself with Saddam's dictatorship. The evidence undermines the unctuous moral superiority with which the current American president, media and public now judge Saddam, a monster the U.S. actively helped create.

and

(b) Weapons of Mass Destruction
Iraq did have WMD (chemical and biological), during the period of alliance to the US. As we know, including members of this administration did all long, most of those stockpiles of weapons were destroyed in 1991 on the orders of Iraqi officials immediately following the Gulf War, before the UN inspections started. The inspectors found the remainder during the next 6 or so years.

U.S. officials and their positions at the time Iraq was using chemical weapons:
i____ _Ronald Reagan, president.
ii____ George Bush Sr, vice-president.
iii____George P. Shultz, secretary of state.
iv____Frank C. Carlucci, defense secretary.
v____ Colin Powell, national security advisor.
vi____Richard Armitage, senior defense official.
vii___Lt. Gen. Leonard Perroots, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency.
viii__Col. Walter P. Lang, senior defense intelligence officer.
ix____Donald Rumsfeld, U.S. Envoy to the Middle East.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/18/in...8f424219c1eb05

Quote:
Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq in War Despite Use of Gas
By PATRICK E. TYLER

ASHINGTON, Aug. 17 A covert American program during the Reagan administration provided Iraq with critical battle planning assistance at a time when American intelligence agencies knew that Iraqi commanders would employ chemical weapons in waging the decisive battles of the Iran-Iraq war, according to senior military officers with direct knowledge of the program.

Those officers, most of whom agreed to speak on the condition that they not be identified, spoke in response to a reporter's questions about the nature of gas warfare on both sides of the conflict between Iran and Iraq from 1981 to 1988. Iraq's use of gas in that conflict is repeatedly cited by President Bush and, this week, by his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, as justification for "regime change" in Iraq.

and:

Quote:
Published on Friday, January 17, 2003 by the International Herald Tribune

America Didn't Seem to Mind Poison Gas

by Joost R. Hiltermann

_
AMMAN, Jordan -- In calling for regime change in Iraq, George W. Bush has accused Saddam Hussein of being a man who gassed his own people. Bush is right, of course. The public record shows that Saddam's regime repeatedly spread poisonous gases on Kurdish villages in 1987 and 1988 in an attempt to put down a persistent rebellion.

The biggest such attack was against Halabja in March 1988. According to local organizations providing relief to the survivors, some 6,800 Kurds were killed, the vast majority of them civilians.

It is a good thing that Bush has highlighted these atrocities by a regime that is more brutal than most. Yet it is cynical to use them as a justification for American plans to terminate the regime. By any measure, the American record on Halabja is shameful.

Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. The result of this stunning act of sophistry was that the international community failed to muster the will to condemn Iraq strongly for an act as heinous as the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center.

This was at a time when Iraq was launching what proved to be the final battles of the war against Iran. Its wholesale use of poison gas against Iranian troops and Iranian Kurdish towns, and its threat to place chemical warheads on the missiles it was lobbing at Tehran, brought Iran to its knees.

Iraq had also just embarked on a counterinsurgency campaign, called the Anfal, against its rebellious Kurds. In this effort, too, the regime's resort to chemical weapons gave it a decisive edge, enabling the systematic killing of an estimated 100,000 men, women, and children.

The deliberate American prevarication on Halabja was the logical, although probably undesired, outcome of a pronounced six-year tilt toward Iraq, seen as a bulwark against the perceived threat posed by Iran's zealous brand of politicized Islam. The United States began the tilt after Iraq, the aggressor in the war, was expelled from Iranian territory by a resurgent Iran, which then decided to pursue its own, fruitless version of regime change in Baghdad. There was little love for what virtually all of Washington recognized as an unsavory regime, but Iraq was considered the lesser evil. Sealed by National Security Decision Directive 114 in 1983, the tilt included billions of dollars in loan guarantees and other credits to Iraq.

Sensing correctly that it had carte blanche, Saddam's regime escalated its resort to gas warfare, graduating to ever more lethal agents. Because of the strong Western animus against Iran, few paid heed. Then came Halabja.

Unfortunately for Iraq's sponsors, Iran rushed Western reporters to the blighted town. The horrifying scenes they filmed were presented on prime time television a few days later. Soon Ted Koppel could be seen putting the Iraqi ambassador's feet to the fire on Nightline.

In response, the United States launched the "Iran too" gambit. The story was cooked up in the Pentagon, interviews with the principals show. A newly declassified State Department document demonstrates that U.S. diplomats received instructions to press this line with U.S. allies, and to decline to discuss the details.

It took seven weeks for the UN Security Council to censure the Halabja attack. Even then, its choice of neutral language (condemning the "continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq," and calling on "both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons") diffused the effect of its belated move. Iraq proceeded to step up its use of gas until the end of the war and even afterward, during the final stage of the Anfal campaign, to devastating effect. When I visited Halabja last spring, the town, razed by successive Iranian and Iraqi occupiers, had been rebuilt, but the physical and psychological wounds remained.

Some of those who engineered the tilt today are back in power in the Bush administration.

They have yet to account for their judgment that it was Iran, not Iraq, that posed the primary threat to the Gulf; for building up Iraq so that it thought it could invade Kuwait and get away with it; for encouraging Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs by giving the regime a de facto green light on chemical weapons use; and for turning a blind eye to Iraq's worst atrocities, and then lying about it.

The writer is preparing a book on U.S. policy toward Iraq, with partial support from the Open Society Institute and the MacArthur Foundation

This doesn't really look very good, does it, SDW.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #126 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by progmac
question directed towards those who support the iraq war:

knowing what you know now, do you believe that starting a war in Iraq after 9-11 was the MOST EFFECTIVE way to root out the sort of terrorism that resulted in the WTC attacks? Or would you have preferred focusing our efforts on countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

note that i am not asking if the Iraq war was justified, but if it was the best route to fighting a war on terror.

/genuinely curious

My feelings are that the war in Iraq, while mildly related to terrorism (as seen in the recent beheadings) was more about Saddam's reluctancy to cooperate with the UN. And the US's obligations to protect itself & the rest of the world from this sort of activity. The fact that terrorism is so often the focus is relevant because the regiem was terrorising it's own people for decades and would have no ethical problems with selling chemical or biological weapons to anyone who wanted them (if they were indeed developing them). I think it was a rough call but I think things would be much better if the UN was'nt simply an organization set up to make rules that otherwise would never get inforced. This is my opinion.
post #127 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Playmaker
My feelings are that the war in Iraq, while mildly related to terrorism (as seen in the recent beheadings) was more about Saddam's reluctancy to cooperate with the UN. And the US's obligations to protect itself & the rest of the world from this sort of activity. The fact that terrorism is so often the focus is relevant because the regiem was terrorising it's own people for decades and would have no ethical problems with selling chemical or biological weapons to anyone who wanted them (if they were indeed developing them). I think it was a rough call but I think things would be much better if the UN was'nt simply an organization set up to make rules that otherwise would never get inforced. This is my opinion.

Reluctancy to cooperate with the UN?

Quote:
Here is a list of UN resolutions with which Israel has not complied. As far as I know they have ignored every single resolution. But the situation is far worse than would at first appear, it involves the serious distortion of the official Security Council record by the profligate use by the United States of its veto power. (See Table)

Israels, defiance goes back to its very beginnings. This collection of resolutions criticizing Israel is unmatched by the record of any other nation.

A list of UN Resolutions against "Israel"
*\t1955-1992:
*\t* Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
*\t* Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
*\t* Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
*\t* Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
*\t* Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
*\t* Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
*\t* Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
*\t* Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
*\t* Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
*\t* Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
*\t* Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
*\t* Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
*\t* Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
*\t* Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
*\t* Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
*\t* Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
*\t*Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
*\t* Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
*\t* Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
*\t* Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
*\t* Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
*\t* Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
*\tobstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
*\t* Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
*\t* Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
*\tstates not to assist Israel's settlements program".
*\t* Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
*\ttwo Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
*\t* Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
*\tcouncil's order not to deport Palestinians".
*\t* Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
*\tby the Fourth Geneva Convention".
*\t* Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
*\t* Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
*\tclaim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
*\t* Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
*\tPalestinian mayors".
*\t* Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
*\tnuclear facility".
*\t* Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
*\tHeights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
*\t* Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
*\t* Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
*\tallow food supplies to be brought in".
*\t* Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
*\tand demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
*\t* Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
*\t* Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
*\tin attack on PLO headquarters.
*\t* Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
*\tits forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
*\t* Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
*\tat Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
*\t* Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
*\tdenying the human rights of Palestinians.
*\t* Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
*\trequests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
*\t* Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
*\t* Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
*\t* Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
*\t* Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
*\tat the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
*\t* Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
*\tNations.
*\t* Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
*\tPalestinians.
*\t* Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
*\tcalls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
*\t* Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
*\t* Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
*\tand calls for there immediate return.


1993 to 1995

UNGA Res 50/21 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 12, 1995)

UNGA Res 50/22 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 12, 1995)

UNGA Res 49/35 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995) l

UNGA Res 49/36 - Human Rights of Palestinian Refugees (Jan 30 1995)

UNGA Res 49/62 - Question of Palestine (Feb 3 1995)

UNGA Res 49/78 - Nuclear Proliferation in Mideast (Jan 11 1995)

UNGA Res 49/87 - Situation in the Middle East (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 49/88 - The Middle East Peace Process (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 49/149- Palestinian Right- Self-Determination (Feb 7 1995)

UNGA Res 48/213 - Assistance to Palestinian Refugees (Mar 15, 1994)

UNGA Res 48/40 - UNRWA for Palestinian Refugees (Dec 13, 1993)

UNGA Res 48/41 - Human Rights in the Territories (Dec 10 1993)

UNGA Res 48/58 - The Middle East Peace Process (Dec 14 1993)

UNGA Res 48/59 - The Situation in the Middle East (Dec 14 1993)

UNGA Res 48/71 - Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Mideast (Dec 16 1993)

UNGA Res 48/78 - Israeli Nuclear Armanent (Dec 16 1993)

UNGA Res 48/94 - Self-Determination & Independence (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/124- Non-interference in Elections (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/158- Question of Palestine (Dec 20 1993)

UNGA Res 48/212- Repercussions of Israeli Settlements (Dec 21 1993)

==========+++===========
U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel

(1972-2002)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vetoes: 1972-1982
Subject \tDate & Meeting \tUS Rep Casting_ Veto \tVote
Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 \t9/10/1972 \tBush \t13-1, 1
Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) \t7/2/1973 \tScali \t13-1, 0 (China not partic.)
Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) \t12/8/1975 \tMoynihan \t13-1, 1
Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6-power draft resolution (S/11940) \t1/26/1976 \tMoynihan \t9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.)
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) \t3/25/1976 \tScranton \t14-1,0
Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4-power draft resolution (S/121119) \t6/29/1976 \tSherer \t10-1,4
Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) \t4/30/1980 \tMcHenry \t10-1,4
Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) \t1/20/1982 \tKirkpatrick \t9-1,5
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) \t4/2/1982 \tLichenstein \t13-1,1
Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution \t4/20/1982 \tKirpatrick \t14-1, 0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) \t6/8/1982 \tKirpatrick \t14-1,0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) \t6/26/1982 \tLichenstein \t14-1
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) \t8/6/1982 \tLichenstein \t11-1,3
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) \t8/2/1983 \tLichenstein \t13-1,1

_

Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present
Subject \tDate \tVote
Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted \t1983
S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 \t9/6/1984 \tVetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)
Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. \t9/13/1985 \tVetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. \t3/12/1985 \tVetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 \t1/30/1986 \t_Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. \t1/17/1986 \tVetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. \t2/6/1986 \tVetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) \t1/18/1988 \tvetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK)
Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory;_ (S/19868) \t5/10/1988 \tvetoed 14-1 (US)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) \t12/14/1988 \tvetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention;_ (S/19466) \t1988 \tvetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories;_ (S/19780) \t1988 \tvetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. \t2/17/1989 \tVetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. \t6/9/1989 \tVetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. \t11/7/1989 \tVetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. \t5/31/1990 \tVetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 \t5/17/1995 \tVetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. \t3/7/1997 \tVetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories \t3/21/1997 \tVetoed 13-1,1 (US)
Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza\t3/27/2001\tVetoed 9-1 (US),
with four abstentions
(Britain, France, Ireland and Norway)
Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers.\t12/15/2001\tVetoed 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions (Britain and Norway)

Source: U.S. State Department

One law for one party...and another law for others. Duplicity always come back to bite....
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #128 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Playmaker
My feelings are that the war in Iraq, while mildly related to terrorism (as seen in the recent beheadings) was more about Saddam's reluctancy to cooperate with the UN. And the US's obligations to protect itself & the rest of the world from this sort of activity. The fact that terrorism is so often the focus is relevant because the regiem was terrorising it's own people for decades and would have no ethical problems with selling chemical or biological weapons to anyone who wanted them (if they were indeed developing them). I think it was a rough call but I think things would be much better if the UN was'nt simply an organization set up to make rules that otherwise would never get inforced. This is my opinion.

I see, and i respect that you aren't muddling the war on terror with the war in Iraq. So, as I understand it, you would have supported a war in Iraq if 9/11 never happened?
post #129 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I say again...TROLL.

So you think I should let this ignorant and simplistic point just slip then? ok...
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #130 of 168
SDW2001, no response? It's a sad day for a discussion.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #131 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
It was on live TV during the first couple of days after the buildings collapsed. You Google, I'll Google, and we'll meet somewhere in the middle.

Here it is.

"Yes, the hand of God is on the arrogant and the oppressor, but that does not change our concern for people."

That's not really an offer...it seems like more of a ploy. But, I'll give it to you.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #132 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
All of the above while still illustrating that Saddam wasn't a nice person and didn't like us ( as there are many such individuals in the world ) is still a weak case ( at best ) for war.

What was the range of the said missles that Iraq had. If they couldn't reach the continental U.S. it negates your argument.

Tried to assasinate a former president? Remind me please.

------------------------------------------------------------

" I said that the 9/11 attack changed the way we percieve threats and deal with them. "

------------------------------------------------------------

Who decides this you?

I don't think so.

The president?

Not entirely.

In the end it's the good people of the United States. You know the ones that vote the president into office ( or not ).

So the US cannot be threatened overseas? Our allies cannot be threatened? Please. Iraq was pursuing missile technology well beyond the 93 mile limit imposed on it.

Your response to my "perception of threats comments" borders on trolling. I know you personally disagreed with the war, but are you honestly arguing that threats should not be perceived differently?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #133 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by New
So you think I should let this ignorant and simplistic point just slip then? ok...

I think you're trying to paint Naples as a racist "A-Rab" hater to further your own personal agenda and poj tof view. You know exactly what he meant.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #134 of 168
And sammi jo:

Your anti-Israeli views are well documented. We haven't even begun to discuss the anti-semitism in the UN.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #135 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
And sammi jo:

Your anti-Israeli views are well documented. We haven't even begun to discuss the anti-semitism in the UN.

Ok, lets start. You brought it up, so fire away.

I also recall you (as well as every rightwinger on this board) quoting the infamous UN SCR 1441 on numerous occasions as the justification to pre-emptively invade Iraq. Is the UN relevant or excess baggage in your opinion? You can't have it both ways btw.

And by the way, there is an astronomical chasm of a difference between anti-Semitism, and criticism of Israeli policy. Don't ever forget. Unfortunately, the obsession of observing political correctness as regards that that nation, its history and people, and it's coming into being after WW2 precludes most fair and balanced discussion.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #136 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I think you're trying to paint Naples as a racist "A-Rab" hater to further your own personal agenda and poj tof view. You know exactly what he meant.

No, I was pointing out that his oneyed view of terrorism isn't really in tune with reality. And I was suggesting that it might have something to do with his biased view of the arab world.
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
Bill Bradley to comedian Bill Cosby: "Bill, you are a comic, tell us a joke!"
- "Senator, you are a politician, first tell us a lie!"
Reply
post #137 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by sammi jo
Ok, lets start. You brought it up, so fire away.

I also recall you (as well as every rightwinger on this board) quoting the infamous UN SCR 1441 on numerous occasions as the justification to pre-emptively invade Iraq. Is the UN relevant or excess baggage in your opinion? You can't have it both ways btw.

And by the way, there is an astronomical chasm of a difference between anti-Semitism, and criticism of Israeli policy. Don't ever forget. Unfortunately, the obsession of observing political correctness as regards that that nation, its history and people, and it's coming into being after WW2 precludes most fair and balanced discussion.


Sammi, the UN mas demonstrated itself to be "excess baggage" throughout the Iraq conflict and the lead up to war. The security council refused to enforce its own resolutions. As for what the UN was before, well I suppose that's a different argument. In the least, it bordered on being "anti-Israel." As far as where I stand, I'd rather not see a security council at all. But, there is one, and as long as there is, its own resolutions should be enforced.

I agree that we can debate Israel policy, which as you may or may not know I haven't agreed with on more than one occasion. In any case, the extensive list you presented is not exactly the same as the resolutions relevant to Iraq. There are a lot of condemnations, but I don't happen to see one that threatens "serious consequences" if Israel doesn't comply. Do you?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #138 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
So the US cannot be threatened overseas? Our allies cannot be threatened? Please. Iraq was pursuing missile technology well beyond the 93 mile limit imposed on it.

Your response to my "perception of threats comments" borders on trolling. I know you personally disagreed with the war, but are you honestly arguing that threats should not be perceived differently?

You know that's NOT what Bush was inplying or what everyone ( who took him seriously ) was thinking. Please don't be stupid about this.

I'm really getting tired of this " Well he didn't actually say there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda ". " He didn't actually say they would attack the contenential U.S. ". " And if you think that it's your fault not Bush ".

Please!

Just dumb!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #139 of 168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
You know that's NOT what Bush was inplying or what everyone ( who took him seriously ) was thinking. Please don't be stupid about this.

I'm really getting tired of this " Well he didn't actually say there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda ". " He didn't actually say they would attack the contenential U.S. ". " And if you think that it's your fault not Bush ".

Please!

Just dumb!

Well that is going to be a problem for you then, because he did not ever say there was a direct connection. The propagandists like Gore, Moore, Kennedy, Kerry and others have spun the bile that you are now regurgitating so much that it has become fact among the FLW, which you are no doubt a part.
post #140 of 168
Blame it all on Naim.
post #141 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
Well that is going to be a problem for you then, because he did not ever say there was a direct connection. The propagandists like Gore, Moore, Kennedy, Kerry and others have spun the bile that you are now regurgitating so much that it has become fact among the FLW, which you are no doubt a part.

No. He implied and if someone drew a conclusion that's their fault.

There's a thing called clarifacation. If he was a responsable president he'd of done that. At the time!

-----------------------------------------------------------

" The propagandists like Gore, Moore, Kennedy, Kerry and others have spun the bile that you are now regurgitating "

-----------------------------------------------------------

If the shoe fits...........

Geez! Just dumb!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #142 of 168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
No. He implied and if someone drew a conclusion that's their fault.

There's a thing called clarifacation. If he was a responsable president he'd of done that. At the time!

Geez! Just dumb!

There are enough speeches and quotes that have been made. He never implied that. You and your FLW brethren wish that he did, that is why you keep saying it, somehow hoping that people will dumb themselves down and "just accept it."

I for one have followed this this from the beginning and he never said it. Go on and align yourself with the likes of Gore, Kennedy and Dean, if you like.

yeeeaahhh!
post #143 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
There are enough speeches and quotes that have been made. He never implied that. You and your FLW brethren wish that he did, that is why you keep saying it, somehow hoping that people will dumb themselves down and "just accept it."

I for one have followed this this from the beginning and he never said it. Go on and align yourself with the likes of Gore, Kennedy and Dean, if you like.

yeeeaahhh!


Come off it! Just about everybody's had enough of the smoke and mirror, Bush for lunch bunch.

I'm sorry if that bothers you but it's the truth.

You can't tell me he didn't know people would misconstrue what he said and take it a certain way.

If miscontrue was the truth that is.

Clarification was in order.

He didn't because he knew it would further his goals.

That's it pretty much in a nutshell.

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #144 of 168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Come off it! Just about everybody's had enough of the smoke and mirror, Bush for lunch bunch.

I'm sorry if that bothers you but it's the truth.

You can't tell me he didn't know people would misconstrue what he said.

Clarification was in order.

He didn't because he knew it would further his goals.

That's it pretty much in a nutshell.

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

http://politicalhumor.about.com/libr...dean_nuts.mpga
http://cdn.moveonpac.org/gore/clips/...20They%203.mov
http://images.usatoday.com/news/_pho...ore-inside.jpg
post #145 of 168
Thread Starter 
post #146 of 168
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Come off it! Just about everybody's had enough of the smoke and mirror, Bush for lunch bunch.

I'm sorry if that bothers you but it's the truth.

You can't tell me he didn't know people would misconstrue what he said and take it a certain way.

If miscontrue was the truth that is.

Clarification was in order.

He didn't because he knew it would further his goals.

That's it pretty much in a nutshell.

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

Jimmac, I reread the posts and I am afraid that i may have knee-jerked at your post a bit. This issue has become so convoluted that I fell into the trap.

I assumed that you were saying the link between the 9/11 attack and Iraq was implied by Bushco., which it wasn't. A link, though, was always stated, not implied.

So anyway, If I jumped the gun, apologies.

On another, yet similar note. Yet another piece of evidence surfaces to show an ongoing relationship between Iraq and AQ:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123757,00.html
.
post #147 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
You know that's NOT what Bush was inplying or what everyone ( who took him seriously ) was thinking. Please don't be stupid about this.

I'm really getting tired of this " Well he didn't actually say there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda ". " He didn't actually say they would attack the contenential U.S. ". " And if you think that it's your fault not Bush ".

Please!

Just dumb!

Perhaps you mean that you're getting tired of actually defending your POV.

Honestly, I'm not sure I ever believed that Iraq had missiles that could reach the mainland US. In fact, I was sure Iraq did not have that capability. That doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a threat. The main point made was that Saddam could supply a WMD to a terrorist group, or possibly lauch chemical weapons at his neighbors. I don't recall any talk or implication of ICBMs being used, do you?

And since you brought up the "fault" issue (in other words, gullibility), I find it amusing that the very same people who are calling Bush a moron now run around screaming that they were lied to. "He duped us! He lied! He fooled us all into thinking there was a threat! Tomfoolery, I say!"
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #148 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Perhaps you mean that you're getting tired of actually defending your POV.

Honestly, I'm not sure I ever believed that Iraq had missiles that could reach the mainland US. In fact, I was sure Iraq did not have that capability. That doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a threat. The main point made was that Saddam could supply a WMD to a terrorist group, or possibly lauch chemical weapons at his neighbors. I don't recall any talk or implication of ICBMs being used, do you?

And since you brought up the "fault" issue (in other words, gullibility), I find it amusing that the very same people who are calling Bush a moron now run around screaming that they were lied to. "He duped us! He lied! He fooled us all into thinking there was a threat! Tomfoolery, I say!"

Listen I talked to plenty people on this board at the time that were saying " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start sprouting in your backyard ". That was their justification for the invasion. That's the way some people thought.

As for the " he duped us! He lied! " If the shoe fits.......

This is the way Bush has been operating and now it's time to pay the piper.

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #149 of 168
It's pathetic, SDW2001, when you can't even admit you're wrong.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #150 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
It's pathetic, SDW2001, when you can't even admit you're wrong.

Bah, in these discussions people not admitting they're wrong is business as usual.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #151 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Bah, in these discussions people not admitting they're wrong is business as usual.

It is not!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #152 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
Listen I talked to plenty people on this board at the time that were saying " Just wait until the mushroom clouds start sprouting in your backyard ". That was their justification for the invasion. That's the way some people thought.

As for the " he duped us! He lied! " If the shoe fits.......

This is the way Bush has been operating and now it's time to pay the piper.

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

So the only way "mushroom clouds" could happen is via missle? I think you've missed the point.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #153 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
It's pathetic, SDW2001, when you can't even admit you're wrong.

I have no problem admitting I'm wrong. But, I'm not wrong here.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #154 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
So the only way "mushroom clouds" could happen is via missle? I think you've missed the point.

That was not the implication and you know it. Plus we didn't find any suitcases full of fissionable material that they could sneak into a large city either.

You're fighting a losing battle here SDW.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #155 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by tonton
Blame it all on Naim.

You know . . . I remember Naim . . . and I wouldn't doubt one it that that guy is somehow linked up with more nefarious creatures out there . . .

that is, if you are mentioning the long winded crack-pot that used to plop bombs of posts here?
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #156 of 168

THAT"S RIGHT BABY!!!

FIRED UP AND FOR A GREAT REASON!!!

Right on Brother
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #157 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
That was not the implication and you know it. Plus we didn't find any suitcases full of fissionable material that they could sneak into a large city either.

You're fighting a losing battle here SDW.

You're crazy. How can you prove an implication? We also were not just talking about nuclear bombs, but dirty bombs and bio/chem weapons.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #158 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Perhaps you mean that you're getting tired of actually defending your POV.

Honestly, I'm not sure I ever believed that Iraq had missiles that could reach the mainland US. In fact, I was sure Iraq did not have that capability. That doesn't mean Iraq wasn't a threat. The main point made was that Saddam could supply a WMD to a terrorist group, or possibly lauch chemical weapons at his neighbors. I don't recall any talk or implication of ICBMs being used, do you?

And since you brought up the "fault" issue (in other words, gullibility), I find it amusing that the very same people who are calling Bush a moron now run around screaming that they were lied to. "He duped us! He lied! He fooled us all into thinking there was a threat! Tomfoolery, I say!"

He fooled some people . . . . he sure fooled you . . . and if that's tomfoolery then make the connection.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #159 of 168
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
He fooled some people . . . . he sure fooled you . . . and if that's tomfoolery then make the connection.

I wasn't fooled into anything. I support our actions in Iraq for many reasons. The real hilarity is found in the fools that argue that Saddam was no threat and that we had no real reason to invade.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #160 of 168
well . . . .

do I really have to say it?!

ok . . . I guess . .

I guess some people are still fools . .. even after they have seen the gold float


and some fools, the worst kind get puffed-up chests and teary-eyed at their own idea about their idea of principles

note, its not their principles, its their idea about their idea of principles that makes them see the floating gold

but enough poetry, back to the topic shall we:


25 killed one day after 100 killed . . . even if those 25 are 'in'surgents that is a very bad 'kill ratio . . . hardly satisfying for "beepbeep kicked" . . .
Unfortunately . . . let us hope that they really are 'in'surgents rather than wedding guests . . .

oh yeah?!?! What ever happeed to that investigation of the wedding masacre?!?
seriously curious here
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Terrorists getting their beepbeeps kicked (merged)