dang, now i am just worried that randycat has a crush on me...talk a little rough with them and they hang on your every word...sorry randycat, i don't swing that way...not that there is anything wrong with that....
anyway, you keep trying to take this thread over to go in the direction of your choice...this thread was about rumsfeld's relationship to saddam, of actual new items from msnbc and the washington post....did you read them?? do you want to comment on them?? if not, please start your own thread and ask any questions you want..
<strong>...if the UN wants our boys in Iraq, then i will accept that....g
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This was your very own statement. Surely, the option is open for a follow-up if you post it?
So if it is OK if the UN supports a war, and few or any of UN representatives can be shown to have had actual military combat backgrounds, but only veterans, actives, and soon-to-be actives should decide on war, this presents a conundrum of logic, no?
That raises further questions, but maybe you consider disregarding them since they are off-topic? Like what is the difference between a soon-to-be-active and a plain jane civilian with regard to having an opinion on war? Neither have seen combat. So what makes the soon-to-be-active more "informed" on the topic. It seems not even all actives should necessarily be deemed "informed", because not all of them have seen combat. So that leaves war veterans specifically as the "informed" ones. The only out is that those who have or will serve have displayed a certain "courage" in serving. ...but then that brings up that unpleasant issue of who is a coward or not and can it be judged simply by knowing if you have served or not. It's a big can of worms making such a distinction, IMO.
but what does that article have to do with saddam and rumsfeld??? let's try to keep on topic of a while please...what do you think of those articles?? did you read them??
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands have to do with what's going on today?
D*ck.
IF NOTHING ELSE, since Rumsfeld knows so much about Saddam, given his extensive personal history with the man, and Rumsfeld says "let's get the f*cker, he's dangerous," we might have to take him at his word. After all, according to the propagandists on the Left, Rumsfeld is supposed to be all chummy with the guy. Great! His opinion on Saddam should be invaluable!
This history isn't relevant to the current debate, nor does it do the Left any good to keep spinning it.
finally somebody i agree with...though you could have left out the dick name calling part....
i think rumsfeld saying saddam is dangerous and has such and such weapons holds a lot of weight and we should be dissussing that...if rumsfeld said to the press, "we know saddam has this and that because we helped him make and manufacture them...Yes it wasn't very good of us to do, but we have to deal with that" i would say, "you are an idiot for doing that, but you are right, we have to stop those weapons"....he would take a lot of heat, but he would also make his point....
i agree that rumsfeld knows saddam and what he has and that we should take his word very seriously....
thank you for reading the articles and adding to the discussion
You lost me completly with that picture. Rumsfeldt walking near Pentagon after the terrorist attack has what to do with Iraq?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mixed. I know he helped victims and all when it happened. But you still have to think what is going on in his mind...
Don't be naive and think that Iraq is not associated with Al Quada. He is. As is Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines and Syria and....it is a terrorist network, supply front, money laundering and safe haven for them.
But I guess Rummy didn't know that way back then...
Don't be naive and think that Iraq is not associated with Al Quada. He is. As is Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines and Syria and....it is a terrorist network, supply front, money laundering and safe haven for them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Is this a quote from someone or are you actually serious?
What does Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands have to do with what's going on today?
D*ck.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No name calling, I promise. Here, "d*ck" is a small quantity, approaching zero rapidly from the left. Meaning "it has NOTHING to do with what's going on today". It's irrelevant. Unless you want to use it to BACK UP Rumsfeld's position on the war. Then it becomes relevant.
Comments
anyway, you keep trying to take this thread over to go in the direction of your choice...this thread was about rumsfeld's relationship to saddam, of actual new items from msnbc and the washington post....did you read them?? do you want to comment on them?? if not, please start your own thread and ask any questions you want..
take care....g
<strong>...if the UN wants our boys in Iraq, then i will accept that....g
</strong><hr></blockquote>
This was your very own statement. Surely, the option is open for a follow-up if you post it?
So if it is OK if the UN supports a war, and few or any of UN representatives can be shown to have had actual military combat backgrounds, but only veterans, actives, and soon-to-be actives should decide on war, this presents a conundrum of logic, no?
That raises further questions, but maybe you consider disregarding them since they are off-topic? Like what is the difference between a soon-to-be-active and a plain jane civilian with regard to having an opinion on war? Neither have seen combat. So what makes the soon-to-be-active more "informed" on the topic. It seems not even all actives should necessarily be deemed "informed", because not all of them have seen combat. So that leaves war veterans specifically as the "informed" ones. The only out is that those who have or will serve have displayed a certain "courage" in serving. ...but then that brings up that unpleasant issue of who is a coward or not and can it be judged simply by knowing if you have served or not. It's a big can of worms making such a distinction, IMO.
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: Randycat99 ]</p>
Oh no, our current government is crap, so is yours I hear. Lets leave it to the sweeds and swiss, the only true neutrals anyway...
<strong>
but what does that article have to do with saddam and rumsfeld??? let's try to keep on topic of a while please...what do you think of those articles?? did you read them??
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What does Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands have to do with what's going on today?
D*ck.
IF NOTHING ELSE, since Rumsfeld knows so much about Saddam, given his extensive personal history with the man, and Rumsfeld says "let's get the f*cker, he's dangerous," we might have to take him at his word. After all, according to the propagandists on the Left, Rumsfeld is supposed to be all chummy with the guy. Great! His opinion on Saddam should be invaluable!
This history isn't relevant to the current debate, nor does it do the Left any good to keep spinning it.
i think rumsfeld saying saddam is dangerous and has such and such weapons holds a lot of weight and we should be dissussing that...if rumsfeld said to the press, "we know saddam has this and that because we helped him make and manufacture them...Yes it wasn't very good of us to do, but we have to deal with that" i would say, "you are an idiot for doing that, but you are right, we have to stop those weapons"....he would take a lot of heat, but he would also make his point....
i agree that rumsfeld knows saddam and what he has and that we should take his word very seriously....
thank you for reading the articles and adding to the discussion
g
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>
<strong>
You lost me completly with that picture. Rumsfeldt walking near Pentagon after the terrorist attack has what to do with Iraq?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Mixed. I know he helped victims and all when it happened. But you still have to think what is going on in his mind...
Don't be naive and think that Iraq is not associated with Al Quada. He is. As is Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines and Syria and....it is a terrorist network, supply front, money laundering and safe haven for them.
But I guess Rummy didn't know that way back then...
<strong>
Don't be naive and think that Iraq is not associated with Al Quada. He is. As is Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Phillipines and Syria and....it is a terrorist network, supply front, money laundering and safe haven for them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>
What does Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands have to do with what's going on today?
D*ck.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No name calling, I promise. Here, "d*ck" is a small quantity, approaching zero rapidly from the left. Meaning "it has NOTHING to do with what's going on today". It's irrelevant. Unless you want to use it to BACK UP Rumsfeld's position on the war. Then it becomes relevant.
g
time for my month long break from AO....back to the happiness of current hardware and the oxygen depleted joy of future hardware....
[ 03-01-2003: Message edited by: thegelding ]</p>