Whenever I want a bee to stop stinging me I spray a hose at it's hive
Yup! That's the way!
When I was a kid the house I'm living in once again was next to my uncle's cherry orchard. In the middle he had several bee hives and when I threw dirt clods at them they always saw the fact that I as a human was much more powerful than they and quieted down ( not! ).
Hey! Maybe that's where dubbya got the idea to " smoke em' out ".
They weren't terrorists, they were Taliban rebels.
Remember we invaded them because they were *harbouring* terrorists i.e. Bin Laden and co. The Taliban were just a repressive theocratic regime (like the Republicans want to be when they grow up).
Interestingly when the media was focused on Afghanistan they never dwelled on the tribal nature of the area and how large groups of 'good guys' had been fighting for the 'bad guys' the day before as various warlords changed sides during the fighting.
I guess reality is just too complicated for some people. Call it a terrorist, kill it and declare yourself a victory, regardless of any actual progress (or lack thereof).
edit: I didn't realise the first story wasn't about the Taliban, the above only realy applies to the other stories.
I want to abide by the forum guidlines but when I see stupid statments like this its very difficult to bite my tongue. Let me preface this statment by saying that the couple of family members (including a younger brother) and several friends that I have over seas right now dont complain about the "republican's theocratic regime". So next time you feel the need to showcase your vocabulary just remember that you're disrespecting some of these people. The troops there (all the troops regardless of nationality) are not running around shooting everything that moves because its fun. So just sit back down on your couch and watch reruns of Bill Mahr while counting down the days until you and your friends can finally buy Fahrenheit 911 on DVD.
I want to abide by the forum guidlines but when I see stupid statments like this its very difficult to bite my tongue. Let me preface this statment by saying that the couple of family members (including a younger brother) and several friends that I have over seas right now dont complain about the "republican's theocratic regime". So next time you feel the need to showcase your vocabulary just remember that you're disrespecting some of these people. The troops there (all the troops regardless of nationality) are not running around shooting everything that moves because its fun. So just sit back down on your couch and watch reruns of Bill Mahr while counting down the days until you and your friends can finally buy Fahrenheit 911 on DVD.
So you're saying that, because we might disrespect the troops, we shouldn't talk about politics?
You are no expert, and I am no expert. I doubt ay answer besides "let's nuke 'em" would satisfy you.
A good start would be to rebuild Iraq and let them choose their own government.
Then we could put serious pressure on the Israelis and Paletinians to find a satisfactory solution.
Maybe even developing and quickly adopting alternatives to oil could diminish terrorism from that area. Less money, less influence, less military presence. Re: the financing. BS. To what extent? Like the "war on drugs"? The idiots who Bush likes to hold hands with come from a country well known to finance terrorism. Who knows, they may even be secretly funding them. Yeah, well you didn't dismiss that comment from the terrorist you "quoted"...which was my whole point. Fig leaves? "Incorrect thinking"? WhatThebeepbeep? 1984 Extreme? Big Bro On Steroids? are you calling a world war...."incorrect thinking"? Awfully simplistic. We can agree there. We have got to pursue other non-violent ways aswell as the ones mentioned before. Violence always brings more violence. That's not news.
1. Umm...OK. Your ridiculous "nuke em" comment aside, I believe they ARE going to be choosing their own government.
2. Quickly developing oil alternatives will not happen, no matter who is in office.
3. Wait...our government is secretly funding terrorism?
4. Again...hold on. Are you disputing my quote and its veracity? Or, are just playing games again? The context we werre discussing the issue in related to terrorist recruitment. In other words, I would not trust a statement by a terrorist indicataing how many new members they've gotten due to Iraq.
5. Violence does not always bring more violence. That's called LIBERAL RHETORIC. War IS sometimes the answer. Welcome to the real world.
6. You know damn well what Naples meant. Man, you really are the Master of Semantics. I don't know about you, but I might define incorrect thinking as "targeting innocent civilians, including women and children and fellow muslims to further an extreme totalitarian goal". Wouldn't you?
I want to abide by the forum guidlines but when I see stupid statments like this its very difficult to bite my tongue. Let me preface this statment by saying that the couple of family members (including a younger brother) and several friends that I have over seas right now dont complain about the "republican's theocratic regime". So next time you feel the need to showcase your vocabulary just remember that you're disrespecting some of these people. The troops there (all the troops regardless of nationality) are not running around shooting everything that moves because its fun. So just sit back down on your couch and watch reruns of Bill Mahr while counting down the days until you and your friends can finally buy Fahrenheit 911 on DVD.
Can you explain why you think this paragraph of yours is in any way related to the post of mine you quoted?
And out of interest, what vocabulary do you think I was showcasing?
For those who aren't masters of semantics I'll explain:
3. He's talking about Saudi Arabia.
4. *You* quoted a terrorist to support your case and then said you wouldn't believe a terrorist when someone else did the same.
-I know he's talking about Saudi Arabia
-That's because we're talking about two different things. Again, is someone disputing the quote and its veracity? Does anyone doubt its meaning or truthfulness? Is it not in line with the radical islamic philsophy? Surely you can see the difference between this statement and one like "We've recruited 10,000 new members since the fall of Iraq".
After making a quick edit to the thread title, I see that other comments were quite condescending towards other members. Any further comments like this will get the thread closed and will result in temporary bans without any further warnings. No more discussion of this post either. Please PM me or another mod if you want to talk respond to it.
1. Umm...OK. Your ridiculous "nuke em" comment aside, I believe they ARE going to be choosing their own government.
Not so ridiculous. Rumsfeld did not rule out using nuclear weapons against Iraq.
Quote:
2. Quickly developing oil alternatives will not happen, no matter who is in office.
Then we are going to have to abandon the system that keeps the destructive status quo of dependence on oil owned by unstable foreign nations, if there is to be any hope of change for the better....and knowing fullwell that it is our continued lust for oil that supports the regimes that breed the terrorists in the first place.
Quote:
3. Wait...our government is secretly funding terrorism?
Well, lets say that our government is waging a very selective war on terrorists. namely, some terrorists are to be squashed, and others are AOK.
Quote:
5. Violence does not always bring more violence. That's called LIBERAL RHETORIC. War IS sometimes the answer. Welcome to the real world.
War is sometimes the answer? War is an appropriate response to being attacked, yes, I will give you that. That might just be why there is an insurgency going on in Iraq. If we were attacked and occupied, I would want to bet that a number of patriotic people outside of our regular armed forces would take things into their own hands and attack the occupiers. But it is not the answer to anything, and never, ever has been. If it was, we would all be fighting, all the time. And re. "pre-emptive war", that kind of thing is definitely not any kind of answer. Imagine if India or Pakistan decided to settle their differences using the Bush doctrine (GOD FORBID). Or Russia and China?GOD FORBID or Israel and Iran..... Osama bin Laden against the USA even?
Violence does beget violence. It is not liberal rhetoric...its common sense, and the human instinct of self-defense. Nobody gets attacked without defending themselves.
Not so ridiculous. Rumsfeld did not rule out using nuclear weapons against Iraq.
Then we are going to have to abandon the system that keeps the destructive status quo of dependence on oil owned by unstable foreign nations, if there is to be any hope of change for the better....and knowing fullwell that it is our continued lust for oil that supports the regimes that breed the terrorists in the first place.
Well, lets say that our government is waging a very selective war on terrorists. namely, some terrorists are to be squashed, and others are AOK.
War is sometimes the answer? War is an appropriate response to being attacked, yes, I will give you that. That might just be why there is an insurgency going on in Iraq. If we were attacked and occupied, I would want to bet that a number of patriotic people outside of our regular armed forces would take things into their own hands and attack the occupiers. But it is not the answer to anything, and never, ever has been. If it was, we would all be fighting, all the time. And re. "pre-emptive war", that kind of thing is definitely not any kind of answer. Imagine if India or Pakistan decided to settle their differences using the Bush doctrine (GOD FORBID). Or Russia and China?GOD FORBID or Israel and Iran..... Osama bin Laden against the USA even?
Violence does beget violence. It is not liberal rhetoric...its common sense, and the human instinct of self-defense. Nobody gets attacked without defending themselves.
1. Of course he didn't. No official at that level would ever rule out any type of weapon we have in our arrsenal. It would be announcing what we would and wouldn't do. Of course, the media loves this kind of situation, because then they get to print a headline that says "Rumsfeld Won't Rule Out uUse of Nuclear Weapons!" If you remember, on 9/11, an official was aksed about respondig with nuclear weapons. He said "all options are on the table". The media loved that, too.
2. We have an oil problem. No question. We need to get off of Middle Eastern oil, do more exploration in and around the US, develop higher efficiency standards, etc. We also need to start planning to develop autos that do not run on gasoline. No question, and no argument. It's just going to take a long time, and Kerry won't make it happen any faster than Bush will. At least Bush wanted to obtain more oil from within our borders. But, anti-ANWR crown went crazy. By "anti-ANWR", I mean the environmental lobby.
3. War is somtimes the answer. That doesn't mean it's plseasant. Pre-emptive war is also sometimes the answer, especially in this day and age. I suppose we simply disagree. In any case, I'm not even sure you can classify Iraq as a pre-emptive. The man refused to openly disarm and cooperate. Now we're hearing that...wait for it...he shipped WMD out of the country. Gee, imagine.
1. Of course he didn't. No official at that level would ever rule out any type of weapon we have in our arrsenal. It would be announcing what we would and wouldn't do. Of course, the media loves this kind of situation, because then they get to print a headline that says "Rumsfeld Won't Rule Out uUse of Nuclear Weapons!" If you remember, on 9/11, an official was aksed about respondig with nuclear weapons. He said "all options are on the table". The media loved that, too.
2. We have an oil problem. No question. We need to get off of Middle Eastern oil, do more exploration in and around the US, develop higher efficiency standards, etc. We also need to start planning to develop autos that do not run on gasoline. No question, and no argument. It's just going to take a long time, and Kerry won't make it happen any faster than Bush will. At least Bush wanted to obtain more oil from within our borders. But, anti-ANWR crown went crazy. By "anti-ANWR", I mean the environmental lobby.
3. War is somtimes the answer. That doesn't mean it's plseasant. Pre-emptive war is also sometimes the answer, especially in this day and age. I suppose we simply disagree. In any case, I'm not even sure you can classify Iraq as a pre-emptive. The man refused to openly disarm and cooperate. Now we're hearing that...wait for it...he shipped WMD out of the country. Gee, imagine.
Once again, your blind partisanship shows. First you comment on WMD. Then, you link to the article on the understimation of terror attacks.
Your own agenda disqualifies your argument. You will use anything...and I mean anything...to discredit the Bush adminsitration and make it look bad. From a one day report on the state of the stock markets, to a jobless claims number that was actually GOOD...you'll use it all.
As for where I've been hearing the WMD were shipped out, try this:
Once again, your blind partisanship shows. First you comment on WMD. Then, you link to the article on the understimation of terror attacks.
Your own agenda disqualifies your argument. You will use anything...and I mean anything...to discredit the Bush adminsitration and make it look bad. From a one day report on the state of the stock markets, to a jobless claims number that was actually GOOD...you'll use it all.
As for where I've been hearing the WMD were shipped out, try this:
" We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons but we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) program," Kay was reported saying in the interview conducted yesterday. "
If it was gone before the war why did we have the war?
As for the economy I've said it looks better it just doesn't have the basics for staying better. That's the part you were supposed to see but of course your love for our fearless leader has you blinded again.
By the way. How many one day reports have I shown you in the last 2 years?
Excuse me, but what does that show? If Saddam had a program, he was in violation of UN resolutions. Why is a large stockpile required? Even ONE chemical warhead is a threat to the region. We've found chemicals. We've found banned missles with ranges exceeding permissable limits. We've even found chemical shells...before the war. Explain the problem.
None of it matters anyway. The same people screaming about Bush's concocted war are the ones who are ON RECORD saying that Saddam was a threat and sought chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Oh but wait...I forgot: Clinton didn't invade, so that justifies their switch of opinion. Right. got it now.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is the bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our country." Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation...and now he is calculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23, 2003
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D- WV), Oct. 3, 2002
There is no defense for these statements, jimmac. If Bush lied, so did they. If Bush was incompetent, so were they. Blame Bush and his team if you'd like...but you better damn well lay the blame evenly.
Comments
Originally posted by jimmac
How could it be won the way they are going about it?
Whenever I want a bee to stop stinging me I spray a hose at it's hive
Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Whenever I want a bee to stop stinging me I spray a hose at it's hive
Yup! That's the way!
When I was a kid the house I'm living in once again was next to my uncle's cherry orchard. In the middle he had several bee hives and when I threw dirt clods at them they always saw the fact that I as a human was much more powerful than they and quieted down ( not! ).
Hey! Maybe that's where dubbya got the idea to " smoke em' out ".
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
They weren't terrorists, they were Taliban rebels.
Remember we invaded them because they were *harbouring* terrorists i.e. Bin Laden and co. The Taliban were just a repressive theocratic regime (like the Republicans want to be when they grow up).
Interestingly when the media was focused on Afghanistan they never dwelled on the tribal nature of the area and how large groups of 'good guys' had been fighting for the 'bad guys' the day before as various warlords changed sides during the fighting.
I guess reality is just too complicated for some people. Call it a terrorist, kill it and declare yourself a victory, regardless of any actual progress (or lack thereof).
edit: I didn't realise the first story wasn't about the Taliban, the above only realy applies to the other stories.
I want to abide by the forum guidlines but when I see stupid statments like this its very difficult to bite my tongue. Let me preface this statment by saying that the couple of family members (including a younger brother) and several friends that I have over seas right now dont complain about the "republican's theocratic regime". So next time you feel the need to showcase your vocabulary just remember that you're disrespecting some of these people. The troops there (all the troops regardless of nationality) are not running around shooting everything that moves because its fun. So just sit back down on your couch and watch reruns of Bill Mahr while counting down the days until you and your friends can finally buy Fahrenheit 911 on DVD.
Originally posted by Playmaker
I want to abide by the forum guidlines but when I see stupid statments like this its very difficult to bite my tongue. Let me preface this statment by saying that the couple of family members (including a younger brother) and several friends that I have over seas right now dont complain about the "republican's theocratic regime". So next time you feel the need to showcase your vocabulary just remember that you're disrespecting some of these people. The troops there (all the troops regardless of nationality) are not running around shooting everything that moves because its fun. So just sit back down on your couch and watch reruns of Bill Mahr while counting down the days until you and your friends can finally buy Fahrenheit 911 on DVD.
So you're saying that, because we might disrespect the troops, we shouldn't talk about politics?
Originally posted by Gilsch
You are no expert, and I am no expert. I doubt ay answer besides "let's nuke 'em" would satisfy you.
A good start would be to rebuild Iraq and let them choose their own government.
Then we could put serious pressure on the Israelis and Paletinians to find a satisfactory solution.
Maybe even developing and quickly adopting alternatives to oil could diminish terrorism from that area. Less money, less influence, less military presence. Re: the financing. BS. To what extent? Like the "war on drugs"? The idiots who Bush likes to hold hands with come from a country well known to finance terrorism. Who knows, they may even be secretly funding them. Yeah, well you didn't dismiss that comment from the terrorist you "quoted"...which was my whole point.
1. Umm...OK. Your ridiculous "nuke em" comment aside, I believe they ARE going to be choosing their own government.
2. Quickly developing oil alternatives will not happen, no matter who is in office.
3. Wait...our government is secretly funding terrorism?
4. Again...hold on. Are you disputing my quote and its veracity? Or, are just playing games again? The context we werre discussing the issue in related to terrorist recruitment. In other words, I would not trust a statement by a terrorist indicataing how many new members they've gotten due to Iraq.
5. Violence does not always bring more violence. That's called LIBERAL RHETORIC. War IS sometimes the answer. Welcome to the real world.
6. You know damn well what Naples meant. Man, you really are the Master of Semantics. I don't know about you, but I might define incorrect thinking as "targeting innocent civilians, including women and children and fellow muslims to further an extreme totalitarian goal". Wouldn't you?
7. WHAT OTHER WAYS? You've said nothing new.
Originally posted by SDW2001
3. Wait...our government is secretly funding terrorism?
4. Again...hold on. Are you disputing my quote and its veracity?
For those who aren't masters of semantics I'll explain:
3. He's talking about Saudi Arabia.
4. *You* quoted a terrorist to support your case and then said you wouldn't believe a terrorist when someone else did the same.
Originally posted by Playmaker
I want to abide by the forum guidlines but when I see stupid statments like this its very difficult to bite my tongue. Let me preface this statment by saying that the couple of family members (including a younger brother) and several friends that I have over seas right now dont complain about the "republican's theocratic regime". So next time you feel the need to showcase your vocabulary just remember that you're disrespecting some of these people. The troops there (all the troops regardless of nationality) are not running around shooting everything that moves because its fun. So just sit back down on your couch and watch reruns of Bill Mahr while counting down the days until you and your friends can finally buy Fahrenheit 911 on DVD.
Can you explain why you think this paragraph of yours is in any way related to the post of mine you quoted?
And out of interest, what vocabulary do you think I was showcasing?
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Can you explain why you think this paragraph of yours is in any way related to the post of mine you quoted?
And out of interest, what vocabulary do you think I was showcasing?
I think he/she meant "theocratic," which is apparently a big word. Whodathunkit?
Cheers
Scott
[edit by BuonRotto]
Its
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
For those who aren't masters of semantics I'll explain:
3. He's talking about Saudi Arabia.
4. *You* quoted a terrorist to support your case and then said you wouldn't believe a terrorist when someone else did the same.
-I know he's talking about Saudi Arabia
-That's because we're talking about two different things. Again, is someone disputing the quote and its veracity? Does anyone doubt its meaning or truthfulness? Is it not in line with the radical islamic philsophy? Surely you can see the difference between this statement and one like "We've recruited 10,000 new members since the fall of Iraq".
After making a quick edit to the thread title, I see that other comments were quite condescending towards other members. Any further comments like this will get the thread closed and will result in temporary bans without any further warnings. No more discussion of this post either. Please PM me or another mod if you want to talk respond to it.
(End parenthesis)
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Umm...OK. Your ridiculous "nuke em" comment aside, I believe they ARE going to be choosing their own government.
Not so ridiculous. Rumsfeld did not rule out using nuclear weapons against Iraq.
2. Quickly developing oil alternatives will not happen, no matter who is in office.
Then we are going to have to abandon the system that keeps the destructive status quo of dependence on oil owned by unstable foreign nations, if there is to be any hope of change for the better....and knowing fullwell that it is our continued lust for oil that supports the regimes that breed the terrorists in the first place.
3. Wait...our government is secretly funding terrorism?
Well, lets say that our government is waging a very selective war on terrorists. namely, some terrorists are to be squashed, and others are AOK.
5. Violence does not always bring more violence. That's called LIBERAL RHETORIC. War IS sometimes the answer. Welcome to the real world.
War is sometimes the answer? War is an appropriate response to being attacked, yes, I will give you that. That might just be why there is an insurgency going on in Iraq. If we were attacked and occupied, I would want to bet that a number of patriotic people outside of our regular armed forces would take things into their own hands and attack the occupiers. But it is not the answer to anything, and never, ever has been. If it was, we would all be fighting, all the time. And re. "pre-emptive war", that kind of thing is definitely not any kind of answer. Imagine if India or Pakistan decided to settle their differences using the Bush doctrine (GOD FORBID). Or Russia and China?GOD FORBID or Israel and Iran..... Osama bin Laden against the USA even?
Violence does beget violence. It is not liberal rhetoric...its common sense, and the human instinct of self-defense. Nobody gets attacked without defending themselves.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Not so ridiculous. Rumsfeld did not rule out using nuclear weapons against Iraq.
Then we are going to have to abandon the system that keeps the destructive status quo of dependence on oil owned by unstable foreign nations, if there is to be any hope of change for the better....and knowing fullwell that it is our continued lust for oil that supports the regimes that breed the terrorists in the first place.
Well, lets say that our government is waging a very selective war on terrorists. namely, some terrorists are to be squashed, and others are AOK.
War is sometimes the answer? War is an appropriate response to being attacked, yes, I will give you that. That might just be why there is an insurgency going on in Iraq. If we were attacked and occupied, I would want to bet that a number of patriotic people outside of our regular armed forces would take things into their own hands and attack the occupiers. But it is not the answer to anything, and never, ever has been. If it was, we would all be fighting, all the time. And re. "pre-emptive war", that kind of thing is definitely not any kind of answer. Imagine if India or Pakistan decided to settle their differences using the Bush doctrine (GOD FORBID). Or Russia and China?GOD FORBID or Israel and Iran..... Osama bin Laden against the USA even?
Violence does beget violence. It is not liberal rhetoric...its common sense, and the human instinct of self-defense. Nobody gets attacked without defending themselves.
1. Of course he didn't. No official at that level would ever rule out any type of weapon we have in our arrsenal. It would be announcing what we would and wouldn't do. Of course, the media loves this kind of situation, because then they get to print a headline that says "Rumsfeld Won't Rule Out uUse of Nuclear Weapons!" If you remember, on 9/11, an official was aksed about respondig with nuclear weapons. He said "all options are on the table". The media loved that, too.
2. We have an oil problem. No question. We need to get off of Middle Eastern oil, do more exploration in and around the US, develop higher efficiency standards, etc. We also need to start planning to develop autos that do not run on gasoline. No question, and no argument. It's just going to take a long time, and Kerry won't make it happen any faster than Bush will. At least Bush wanted to obtain more oil from within our borders. But, anti-ANWR crown went crazy. By "anti-ANWR", I mean the environmental lobby.
3. War is somtimes the answer. That doesn't mean it's plseasant. Pre-emptive war is also sometimes the answer, especially in this day and age. I suppose we simply disagree. In any case, I'm not even sure you can classify Iraq as a pre-emptive. The man refused to openly disarm and cooperate. Now we're hearing that...wait for it...he shipped WMD out of the country. Gee, imagine.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Of course he didn't. No official at that level would ever rule out any type of weapon we have in our arrsenal. It would be announcing what we would and wouldn't do. Of course, the media loves this kind of situation, because then they get to print a headline that says "Rumsfeld Won't Rule Out uUse of Nuclear Weapons!" If you remember, on 9/11, an official was aksed about respondig with nuclear weapons. He said "all options are on the table". The media loved that, too.
2. We have an oil problem. No question. We need to get off of Middle Eastern oil, do more exploration in and around the US, develop higher efficiency standards, etc. We also need to start planning to develop autos that do not run on gasoline. No question, and no argument. It's just going to take a long time, and Kerry won't make it happen any faster than Bush will. At least Bush wanted to obtain more oil from within our borders. But, anti-ANWR crown went crazy. By "anti-ANWR", I mean the environmental lobby.
3. War is somtimes the answer. That doesn't mean it's plseasant. Pre-emptive war is also sometimes the answer, especially in this day and age. I suppose we simply disagree. In any case, I'm not even sure you can classify Iraq as a pre-emptive. The man refused to openly disarm and cooperate. Now we're hearing that...wait for it...he shipped WMD out of the country. Gee, imagine.
-----------------------------------------------------------
" Now we're hearing that...wait for it...he shipped WMD out of the country. Gee, imagine. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Where are you hearing that one? Other than speculation on the part of people who want this to be true?
Thank god the warmongering is on the way out! I'm really tired of the torrential down pour of alternate reality logic.
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
PS. Even if SH shipped these nonexistant WOMD all out in that amount of time he couldn't have had a very formitable arsenal.
Oh! and how would he have deployed them?
This is what they call " Clutching at straws ".
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/13/pow....ap/index.html
Ah, gee!
It would be even more funny if it didn't involve people's lives.
I'd be willing to bet the real figures show terrorism has gone up not down.
Slanted reports!
It's all someone else's fault!
God, this Bush is over the top and has got to go!
OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!
Once again, your blind partisanship shows. First you comment on WMD. Then, you link to the article on the understimation of terror attacks.
Your own agenda disqualifies your argument. You will use anything...and I mean anything...to discredit the Bush adminsitration and make it look bad. From a one day report on the state of the stock markets, to a jobless claims number that was actually GOOD...you'll use it all.
As for where I've been hearing the WMD were shipped out, try this:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Winnip...25/324358.html
(not the best source...but there are others)
and on the terror front:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...salman_pak.htm
Originally posted by SDW2001
jimmac,
Once again, your blind partisanship shows. First you comment on WMD. Then, you link to the article on the understimation of terror attacks.
Your own agenda disqualifies your argument. You will use anything...and I mean anything...to discredit the Bush adminsitration and make it look bad. From a one day report on the state of the stock markets, to a jobless claims number that was actually GOOD...you'll use it all.
As for where I've been hearing the WMD were shipped out, try this:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Winnip...25/324358.html
(not the best source...but there are others)
and on the terror front:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/wo...salman_pak.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------
" We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons but we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) program," Kay was reported saying in the interview conducted yesterday. "
-----------------------------------------------------------
Uh huh.
If it was gone before the war why did we have the war?
As for the economy I've said it looks better it just doesn't have the basics for staying better. That's the part you were supposed to see but of course your love for our fearless leader has you blinded again.
By the way. How many one day reports have I shown you in the last 2 years?
Here's another one day report.......
http://money.cnn.com/2004/06/14/news...ex.htm?cnn=yes
Tell me again how deficits can be good.
None of it matters anyway. The same people screaming about Bush's concocted war are the ones who are ON RECORD saying that Saddam was a threat and sought chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Oh but wait...I forgot: Clinton didn't invade, so that justifies their switch of opinion. Right. got it now.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is the bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-if necessary-to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our country." Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation...and now he is calculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23, 2003
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D- WV), Oct. 3, 2002
There is no defense for these statements, jimmac. If Bush lied, so did they. If Bush was incompetent, so were they. Blame Bush and his team if you'd like...but you better damn well lay the blame evenly.