Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Afghanistan and Iraq.....

Recommended Posts

Kalshion, your entitled to your opinion, but you, "AGAIN" take my post as some kind of biblical format, for me.

I am sorry your so confused. It was merely an EXAMPLE, of HOW MANY COURT ACTIONS are in play, DUE to BUSH ideology. ALL of which, are being FOUGHT, in order to preserve YOUR constitutional RIGHTS.

OUR whole conversation, could be more plesant, If your views were'nt so warped, that you feel EVERYONE, but BUSH and FOX news were COMMUNIST.

There are MANY books on the market, which describe the various types of GOVERNMENT rule known. And you sure could USE a refresher course, in your attempt to identify them correctly.

There are HUGE differences, in SOCIALISM(ACLU's base ideology) and COMMUNISM(RULE BY COHERSIVE FORCE IDEOLOGY) and TOTALITARIANISM(ONE GOVERNMENT PARTY RULE- IDEOLOGY)

BUSH :expressing, and ACTIVELY demonstrating, a combination, of the latter TWO. ..........................DUH!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to double post.. thought some of you might find this interesting

quote:

IRAQ -- (Senate - February 13, 2002)

[Page: S708] GPO's PDF

---

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, as Senator Byrd mentioned, we have serious issues to contemplate concerning Iraq . This is a country we have had conflict with before, a country that has weapons of mass destruction . Iraq has been at war with itself and its neighbors for 22 of the 23 years that Saddam Hussein has ruled that country. The people of Iraq have not known peace under Saddam Hussein.

History reveals repression at home is often the breeding ground for outside aggression. Iraq is certainly a case in point. There has been no peace in Iraq since Saddam Hussein came to power more than two decades ago. First, he declared war on Iran, a war that lasted nearly a decade. He then declared war on the Iraq Kurdish population in the north. He even used chemical weapons against them in his pursuit of total and absolute control of Iraq .

After the war with the Kurds, he declared war on Kuwait, calling Kuwait an integral part of Iraq . Since his defeat at the hands of the U.S.-led coalition, Saddam has spent the past decade defying the United Nations and the United Nations imposed agreements and building weapons of mass destruction to use against his next victims.

History has also shown that authoritarian dictators do not successfully become integrated into civilized society. On the contrary, they seek any and all means to pursue their goals and perceive any positive overtures towards them as acts of weakness on the part of their adversaries. It has been the policy of the U.S. Government to seek the overthrow of Saddam Hussein since the passage of the 1997 Iraq Liberation Act. This policy is strongly supported--it was then and is now--by both Houses of Congress and both parties. It was also embraced by President Bush in the Republican Party platform.

This is going to be a key issue as we continue to look at what we are going to do to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We are not safe. That region of the world is not safe as long as Saddam Hussein rules in Iraq . This situation is not tenable over the long term. I am hopeful we can move forward to see

[Page: S709] GPO's PDF

some stability established in the region without Saddam Hussein in power.

quote:

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nationals Richard Holbrooke similarly stated: ``in my view, Saddam is even more dangerous than [former Serbian leader Slobodan] Milosevic, given his continuing quest for weapons of mass destruction . Left alone, he will only seek to become stronger.''

Now, neither of these two eminent individuals share all of President Bush's foreign policy priorities. But both concede that the threat is real, and growing.

Second, three former high-ranking members of the U.N. Special Commission agreed that inspections will fail to stop Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction . Charles Deulfer stated that, in his opinion, inspections ``are only a short term palliative and do not address the fundamental problem. Saddam knows this.''

Ambassador Robert Gallucci noted that ``We can assume that any regime that appeared as though it would be effective in blocking Iraqi WMD acquisition would also be resisted by Iraq .

Therefore, the only way to impose such a regime short of war would be to pose to Iraq the credible alternative of a prompt invasion and regime change if the inspection regime change if the inspection regime resisted.''

Lastly, Ambassador Richard Butler, the former head of the inspections team, warned that inspections were doomed to fail if Saddam succeeds once again in what Butler calls the ``shell game--phony inspections, more deceit, more concealment.'' ``That would,'' he concluded, ``be deeply dangerous, providing an illusion of security.''

Third, a variety of witnesses, including Secretary Powell, agreed that containment of the Iraq threat, our policy since the end of Operation Desert Storm, is no longer suitable.

Secretary Powell told the committee that the box that contains Saddam Hussein's murderous ambitions cannot last much longer. Secretary Powell, said, ``[saddam] continues to bounce against the walls of that box. And one of these days he'll have a box cutter and he'll be out. And we don't want to wait and see that day.''

Ambassador Butler also suggested that containment no longer works. He told the committee, ``we also need a specific solution to the specific problems posed by this particular and, I suggest, unique outlaw.'' Former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, and Dr. Khidir Hamza, former Iraqi nuclear weapons designer, all noted Saddam's absolute commitment to the development of weapons of mass destruction , especially nuclear weapons .

Secretary Weinberger also noted that Saddam's ability to smuggle goods in and out of Iraq , despite U.N. sanctions, earns him billions of dollars per year--money that goes to develop weapons of mass destruction .


quote:

Some say the way was justified even if WMDs are not found nor their destruction explained, because the world is ``better off'' without Saddam. Of course it is better off. But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny--on to Burma?--it is unacceptable to argue that Saddam's mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for pre-emptive war. Americans seem sanguine about the failure--so far--to validate the war's premise about the threat posed by Saddam's WMDs , but a long-term failure would unravel much of this President's policy and rhetoric.

Saddam, forced by the defection of his son-in-law, acknowledged in the mid-1990s his possession of chemical and biological WMDs . President Clinton, British, French and German intelligence agencies and even Hans Blix (who tells the British newspaper The Guardian, ``We know for sure that they did exist'') have expressed certainty about Iraq having WMDs at some point.

A vast multinational conspiracy of bad faith, using fictitious WMDs as a pretext for war, is a wildly implausible explanation of the failure to find WMDs . What is plausible? James Woolsey, President Clinton's first CIA director, suggests the following:

As war approached, Saddam, a killer but not a fighter, was a parochial figure who had not left Iraq since 1979. He was surrounded by terrified sycophants and several Russian advisers who assured him that if Russia could not subdue Grozny in Chechnya, casualty-averse Americans would not conquer Baghdad.

Based on his experience in the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam assumed there would be a ground offensive only after prolonged bombing. U.S. forces would conquer the desert, then stop. He could manufacture civilian casualties--perhaps by blowing up some of his own hospitals--to inflame world opinion, and count on his European friends to force a halt in the war, based on his promise to open Iraq to inspections, having destroyed his WMDs on the eve of war.


Congressional Records

Go there and search the rest for yourself, something's I found where very interesting.. both toward Bush and Kerry.. his absense at some of the most important vote's being one of the key things

Anywho I'm not going to do any more of you're dity work, if you're so interest in this WMD thing.. SEARCH FOR YOURSELF

[ 08-16-2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Kalshion ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to double post.. thought some of you might find this interesting

quote:

IRAQ -- (Senate - February 13, 2002)

[Page: S708] GPO's PDF

---

Mr. BROWNBACK. Madam President, as Senator Byrd mentioned, we have serious issues to contemplate concerning Iraq . This is a country we have had conflict with before, a country that has weapons of mass destruction . Iraq has been at war with itself and its neighbors for 22 of the 23 years that Saddam Hussein has ruled that country. The people of Iraq have not known peace under Saddam Hussein.

History reveals repression at home is often the breeding ground for outside aggression. Iraq is certainly a case in point. There has been no peace in Iraq since Saddam Hussein came to power more than two decades ago. First, he declared war on Iran, a war that lasted nearly a decade. He then declared war on the Iraq Kurdish population in the north. He even used chemical weapons against them in his pursuit of total and absolute control of Iraq .

After the war with the Kurds, he declared war on Kuwait, calling Kuwait an integral part of Iraq . Since his defeat at the hands of the U.S.-led coalition, Saddam has spent the past decade defying the United Nations and the United Nations imposed agreements and building weapons of mass destruction to use against his next victims.

History has also shown that authoritarian dictators do not successfully become integrated into civilized society. On the contrary, they seek any and all means to pursue their goals and perceive any positive overtures towards them as acts of weakness on the part of their adversaries. It has been the policy of the U.S. Government to seek the overthrow of Saddam Hussein since the passage of the 1997 Iraq Liberation Act. This policy is strongly supported--it was then and is now--by both Houses of Congress and both parties. It was also embraced by President Bush in the Republican Party platform.

This is going to be a key issue as we continue to look at what we are going to do to remove Saddam Hussein from power. We are not safe. That region of the world is not safe as long as Saddam Hussein rules in Iraq . This situation is not tenable over the long term. I am hopeful we can move forward to see

[Page: S709] GPO's PDF

some stability established in the region without Saddam Hussein in power.

quote:

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nationals Richard Holbrooke similarly stated: ``in my view, Saddam is even more dangerous than [former Serbian leader Slobodan] Milosevic, given his continuing quest for weapons of mass destruction . Left alone, he will only seek to become stronger.''

Now, neither of these two eminent individuals share all of President Bush's foreign policy priorities. But both concede that the threat is real, and growing.

Second, three former high-ranking members of the U.N. Special Commission agreed that inspections will fail to stop Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction . Charles Deulfer stated that, in his opinion, inspections ``are only a short term palliative and do not address the fundamental problem. Saddam knows this.''

Ambassador Robert Gallucci noted that ``We can assume that any regime that appeared as though it would be effective in blocking Iraqi WMD acquisition would also be resisted by Iraq .

Therefore, the only way to impose such a regime short of war would be to pose to Iraq the credible alternative of a prompt invasion and regime change if the inspection regime change if the inspection regime resisted.''

Lastly, Ambassador Richard Butler, the former head of the inspections team, warned that inspections were doomed to fail if Saddam succeeds once again in what Butler calls the ``shell game--phony inspections, more deceit, more concealment.'' ``That would,'' he concluded, ``be deeply dangerous, providing an illusion of security.''

Third, a variety of witnesses, including Secretary Powell, agreed that containment of the Iraq threat, our policy since the end of Operation Desert Storm, is no longer suitable.

Secretary Powell told the committee that the box that contains Saddam Hussein's murderous ambitions cannot last much longer. Secretary Powell, said, ``[saddam] continues to bounce against the walls of that box. And one of these days he'll have a box cutter and he'll be out. And we don't want to wait and see that day.''

Ambassador Butler also suggested that containment no longer works. He told the committee, ``we also need a specific solution to the specific problems posed by this particular and, I suggest, unique outlaw.'' Former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, and Dr. Khidir Hamza, former Iraqi nuclear weapons designer, all noted Saddam's absolute commitment to the development of weapons of mass destruction , especially nuclear weapons .

Secretary Weinberger also noted that Saddam's ability to smuggle goods in and out of Iraq , despite U.N. sanctions, earns him billions of dollars per year--money that goes to develop weapons of mass destruction .


quote:

Some say the way was justified even if WMDs are not found nor their destruction explained, because the world is ``better off'' without Saddam. Of course it is better off. But unless one is prepared to postulate a U.S. right, perhaps even a duty, to militarily dismantle any tyranny--on to Burma?--it is unacceptable to argue that Saddam's mass graves and torture chambers suffice as retrospective justifications for pre-emptive war. Americans seem sanguine about the failure--so far--to validate the war's premise about the threat posed by Saddam's WMDs , but a long-term failure would unravel much of this President's policy and rhetoric.

Saddam, forced by the defection of his son-in-law, acknowledged in the mid-1990s his possession of chemical and biological WMDs . President Clinton, British, French and German intelligence agencies and even Hans Blix (who tells the British newspaper The Guardian, ``We know for sure that they did exist'') have expressed certainty about Iraq having WMDs at some point.

A vast multinational conspiracy of bad faith, using fictitious WMDs as a pretext for war, is a wildly implausible explanation of the failure to find WMDs . What is plausible? James Woolsey, President Clinton's first CIA director, suggests the following:

As war approached, Saddam, a killer but not a fighter, was a parochial figure who had not left Iraq since 1979. He was surrounded by terrified sycophants and several Russian advisers who assured him that if Russia could not subdue Grozny in Chechnya, casualty-averse Americans would not conquer Baghdad.

Based on his experience in the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam assumed there would be a ground offensive only after prolonged bombing. U.S. forces would conquer the desert, then stop. He could manufacture civilian casualties--perhaps by blowing up some of his own hospitals--to inflame world opinion, and count on his European friends to force a halt in the war, based on his promise to open Iraq to inspections, having destroyed his WMDs on the eve of war.


Congressional Records

Go there and search the rest for yourself, something's I found where very interesting.. both toward Bush and Kerry.. his absense at some of the most important vote's being one of the key things

Anywho I'm not going to do any more of you're dity work, if you're so interest in this WMD thing.. SEARCH FOR YOURSELF

[ 08-16-2004, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Kalshion ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by street:

Kalshion, your entitled to your opinion, but you, "AGAIN" take my post as some kind of biblical format, for me.

I am sorry your so confused. It was merely an EXAMPLE, of HOW MANY COURT ACTIONS are in play, DUE to BUSH ideology. ALL of which, are being FOUGHT, in order to preserve YOUR constitutional RIGHTS.

OUR whole conversation, could be more plesant, If your views were'nt so warped, that you feel EVERYONE, but BUSH and FOX news were COMMUNIST.

There are MANY books on the market, which describe the various types of GOVERNMENT rule known. And you sure could USE a refresher course, in your attempt to identify them correctly.

There are HUGE differences, in SOCIALISM(ACLU's base ideology) and COMMUNISM(RULE BY COHERSIVE FORCE IDEOLOGY) and TOTALITARIANISM(ONE GOVERNMENT PARTY RULE- IDEOLOGY)

BUSH :expressing, and ACTIVELY demonstrating, a combination, of the latter TWO. ..........................DUH!!!

The thing you fail to realize is the source of most of those Books my Dear Street

I'm sure you've read the book from Clinton.. aye? If so then you should probably already know that Clinton announced that he was a traitor.. oh WAIT! You convently forgot that huh? Figures..

Sorry Little kid, but you need serious help if you're going to make it in this world, you're continued BUSH HATE and BUSH LIED retorical is boring *yawns* when you finally get out of the liberal ploy that is Kerry and the Demo-rats, let me know. Then perhaps we can have a convent conversation... although I doubt it.. But hey, who knows

Enjoy living in the fantasy land known as Kerry.. cause as long as people like myself and Jaguar who continue to look for scources for our facts are still alive. Kerry will not make it into office, perhaps some day you'll learn this.. perhaps some day the liberal's will come to terms with reality and figure out how wrong they've been all this time

<--- is enjoying the way how street and Takvah continue to ignore the facts without checking the records first --->

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by street:

Kalshion, your entitled to your opinion, but you, "AGAIN" take my post as some kind of biblical format, for me.

I am sorry your so confused. It was merely an EXAMPLE, of HOW MANY COURT ACTIONS are in play, DUE to BUSH ideology. ALL of which, are being FOUGHT, in order to preserve YOUR constitutional RIGHTS.

OUR whole conversation, could be more plesant, If your views were'nt so warped, that you feel EVERYONE, but BUSH and FOX news were COMMUNIST.

There are MANY books on the market, which describe the various types of GOVERNMENT rule known. And you sure could USE a refresher course, in your attempt to identify them correctly.

There are HUGE differences, in SOCIALISM(ACLU's base ideology) and COMMUNISM(RULE BY COHERSIVE FORCE IDEOLOGY) and TOTALITARIANISM(ONE GOVERNMENT PARTY RULE- IDEOLOGY)

BUSH :expressing, and ACTIVELY demonstrating, a combination, of the latter TWO. ..........................DUH!!!

The thing you fail to realize is the source of most of those Books my Dear Street

I'm sure you've read the book from Clinton.. aye? If so then you should probably already know that Clinton announced that he was a traitor.. oh WAIT! You convently forgot that huh? Figures..

Sorry Little kid, but you need serious help if you're going to make it in this world, you're continued BUSH HATE and BUSH LIED retorical is boring *yawns* when you finally get out of the liberal ploy that is Kerry and the Demo-rats, let me know. Then perhaps we can have a convent conversation... although I doubt it.. But hey, who knows

Enjoy living in the fantasy land known as Kerry.. cause as long as people like myself and Jaguar who continue to look for scources for our facts are still alive. Kerry will not make it into office, perhaps some day you'll learn this.. perhaps some day the liberal's will come to terms with reality and figure out how wrong they've been all this time

<--- is enjoying the way how street and Takvah continue to ignore the facts without checking the records first --->

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Love that last line Street, just because it's the ACLU, does NOT discredit.....ROFLMAO

Sorry stud, OH YES IT DOES....

The ACLU? the ones that make a mockery of the court system, the ones that sue for racial discrimination at the drop of a hat? The ACLU, that used to protect peoples rights under the constitution, but now all they want is the publicity it gets them?

The ACLU, is the organized crime of Lawyers guilds, they are bunch of pumped up, pimped out, money grubbing POS's that wouldn't know what the constitution meant if it came up and explained itself to them.

They are the terrorists of Lawyers, they come in, jam their lawsuit down a poor defendants neck, gets money if they can, and takes them to court if they can't.

The best way to win a case, is to outspend the ones who are defending against you.

The ACLU came up with this little purse snatching scheme, it's just that little Jesse and his ilk learned how rewarding it could actually be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Love that last line Street, just because it's the ACLU, does NOT discredit.....ROFLMAO

Sorry stud, OH YES IT DOES....

The ACLU? the ones that make a mockery of the court system, the ones that sue for racial discrimination at the drop of a hat? The ACLU, that used to protect peoples rights under the constitution, but now all they want is the publicity it gets them?

The ACLU, is the organized crime of Lawyers guilds, they are bunch of pumped up, pimped out, money grubbing POS's that wouldn't know what the constitution meant if it came up and explained itself to them.

They are the terrorists of Lawyers, they come in, jam their lawsuit down a poor defendants neck, gets money if they can, and takes them to court if they can't.

The best way to win a case, is to outspend the ones who are defending against you.

The ACLU came up with this little purse snatching scheme, it's just that little Jesse and his ilk learned how rewarding it could actually be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Brownback...... oh no... this can only end badly.

Foot Washing NUT. Nuff said.

Yip, Yip, I see little grasshopper is turning into little Chihuaua attack doggie, yip, yip......

Watch those ankles boys, he just might bite them.....

Cleanup on aisle 2 please..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Brownback...... oh no... this can only end badly.

Foot Washing NUT. Nuff said.

Yip, Yip, I see little grasshopper is turning into little Chihuaua attack doggie, yip, yip......

Watch those ankles boys, he just might bite them.....

Cleanup on aisle 2 please..........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFLMAO. Dude did I wash people's feet? This is the way it is. This is the way this man behaves. Brownback the NUT Cleanup in aisle 2? What did you just crap your pants Wee Man? YOU DON'T INVOKE THE NAME BROWNBACK AND THEN SUDDENLY FORGET THAT THIS NUT WAS WASHING THE FEET OF A DEPARTING STAFFER. This kind of BS might play in Kansas or in the warped, small sphere of Wee men like you Jaguar but this kind of garbage doesn't fly in the world of NORMAL, EVERY DAY AMERICANS. And surely not in the realm of this 6'5" Republican. Little? Nope. Grasshopper? Nope. I prefer praying mantis... *snickers* How's that voting in a Democratic stronghold working out for you? BUAHAHAH!

Tomorrow I will be bringing you the story of an veteran of the Iraq War that was threatened by Secret Service at a Bush rally as well as the use of FDLE personnel to intimidate black poll workers in Orlando. Nice bunch you support Jaguar... paranoid freaks... oh wait... you are a paranoid freak. Ooops... silly me.

[ 08-16-2004, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Chavik ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFLMAO. Dude did I wash people's feet? This is the way it is. This is the way this man behaves. Brownback the NUT Cleanup in aisle 2? What did you just crap your pants Wee Man? YOU DON'T INVOKE THE NAME BROWNBACK AND THEN SUDDENLY FORGET THAT THIS NUT WAS WASHING THE FEET OF A DEPARTING STAFFER. This kind of BS might play in Kansas or in the warped, small sphere of Wee men like you Jaguar but this kind of garbage doesn't fly in the world of NORMAL, EVERY DAY AMERICANS. And surely not in the realm of this 6'5" Republican. Little? Nope. Grasshopper? Nope. I prefer praying mantis... *snickers* How's that voting in a Democratic stronghold working out for you? BUAHAHAH!

Tomorrow I will be bringing you the story of an veteran of the Iraq War that was threatened by Secret Service at a Bush rally as well as the use of FDLE personnel to intimidate black poll workers in Orlando. Nice bunch you support Jaguar... paranoid freaks... oh wait... you are a paranoid freak. Ooops... silly me.

[ 08-16-2004, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: Cmdr Chavik ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

1: OK, you are saying that Syria received Iraqi WMDs. One story has to do with Iraq supposedly shipping crates of WMDs to the Assad government. That was the first story from WorldNet Daily. WORLDNET DAILY! Wow now there's a highly respected and sought after news source if I ever saw one.

2: Do you know who runs WorldNet Daily?

3: Then you put up a link to a second story. I suppose that the second story was going to somehow support the first. Welp, I'm sorry it didn't. SYRIA is a SCUMBAG country, of this there is no doubt. Do I believe that Syria might be engaged in terrorism and perhaps the manufacture of WMDs ... ABSOLUTELY. What I am not convinced of however, is that the Iraqi WMDs somehow got funneled to Syria, and NOWHERE IN THAT CNN STORY IS THAT EVEN ALLUDED TO.

4: Another rookie effort. I won't accept anything that isn't reported by mainstream media? No. Let me clarify. I won't support anything reported by the WHACKO FRINGE, on either side of the aisle. Period, the end.

5: NO WMDs is NO WMDs. I know he had them, why? Because Reagan gave them to him. Saddam's biological arsenal was US made. However these things have a shelf life and between the UN inspections (more WMDs were destroyed by UN inspectors than by the US during Gulf War I and Gulf War II it's a fact check it out!) and bombings conducted by US and British planes from time to time his arsenal was DESTROYED.

6: It is even in major debate if he had anything beyond 1991 that was of sufficient quantity or quality to deem that he even POSSESSED WMDs after that date.

Funny nobody reported about this story! How the hell did that happen?

7: Remember the lovely coloring book like illustrations of mobile weapons making labs that he presented to the Security Council? Remember how he showed you those satellite photos of the decontamination vehicles. Did you know that they've fact checked Powell's information?

8: You guys want to color EVERYBODY that says, "Hey wait a minute, none of this was TRUE," as a bunch of morons. Funny coming from guys that still believe it even though there is not ONE shread of evidence to support the WMD argument. Farah doesn't have EVIDENCE. He has some "source". BRING ME THE EVIDENCE. PRODUCE IT. Otherwise just move it along like Bush did (why didn't he cart out Farah to explain this funneling thing to us) to the, "He was a bad man," argument. Sure that's not the REASON WE WENT (because nobody would have agreed to it) but now that we're there what the hell... right?

9: Gentlemen, I kick you in the nuts and send you to the mat hard in every argument we ever have and still you maniacs somehow think you're on a moral and intellectual high-ground. You're as deluded in your assessment of the outcome of our debates as you are in your belief that G.W. has the goods on WMDs. HERE ARE THE FACTS AS THEY ARE KNOWN. I stated them. Your facts are CRAP... where are the WMDs? I'll say it again and again and again. You can tell me Santa Claus took them to the North Pole but you better have some HARD FACTS AND INTEL to support it.

Looks like Little Grasshopper is on top, Game, Set, Match.

1: I'm not saying it myself. I have no first hand knowlege of this. I am providing the link so all can see other news besides that which is on CNN etc.... Take the links I post the way you want I don't care.

2: If you notice, I post links from a wide variety of sources including CNN.

3:The second link was just a follow up. I could care less if it supports the first link or not. I mainly posted it to see if someone would have any current info on the state of the syrian sanctions.

4: You know the phrase "Fear is the mind killer"? Well you fear the other sources because they may speak the truth. You fear to venture out from your safe haven that is the mainstream media. I read and watch things from all manner of sources. From average everyday sources all the way to radical babblings. I don't fear any source of information. I approach each and every source with an open mind. I will either agree with that source or disagree with it.

5,6,7,8: I'll get to these in a little bit.

9: I didn't know this was suppose to be a dirty street fight (no not the street that posts here ). Leave it to you to kick people in the nuts. As Triumph the insult dog has said, "My you've got quite an immagination." You're "facts" are just that "Yours" as is mine. How people handle the information I post is up to them. And that as they say is that.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Brownback...... oh no... this can only end badly.

Foot Washing NUT. Nuff said.

Yip, Yip, I see little grasshopper is turning into little Chihuaua attack doggie, yip, yip......

Watch those ankles boys, he just might bite them.....

Cleanup on aisle 2 please..........


ROTFLMAO!! Oh no, that is going to send him into a tirade. oppps, I think it already has...

Me thinks someone is suffering from a massive superiority complex. (see next post).

[ 08-16-2004, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

1: OK, you are saying that Syria received Iraqi WMDs. One story has to do with Iraq supposedly shipping crates of WMDs to the Assad government. That was the first story from WorldNet Daily. WORLDNET DAILY! Wow now there's a highly respected and sought after news source if I ever saw one.

2: Do you know who runs WorldNet Daily?

3: Then you put up a link to a second story. I suppose that the second story was going to somehow support the first. Welp, I'm sorry it didn't. SYRIA is a SCUMBAG country, of this there is no doubt. Do I believe that Syria might be engaged in terrorism and perhaps the manufacture of WMDs ... ABSOLUTELY. What I am not convinced of however, is that the Iraqi WMDs somehow got funneled to Syria, and NOWHERE IN THAT CNN STORY IS THAT EVEN ALLUDED TO.

4: Another rookie effort. I won't accept anything that isn't reported by mainstream media? No. Let me clarify. I won't support anything reported by the WHACKO FRINGE, on either side of the aisle. Period, the end.

5: NO WMDs is NO WMDs. I know he had them, why? Because Reagan gave them to him. Saddam's biological arsenal was US made. However these things have a shelf life and between the UN inspections (more WMDs were destroyed by UN inspectors than by the US during Gulf War I and Gulf War II it's a fact check it out!) and bombings conducted by US and British planes from time to time his arsenal was DESTROYED.

6: It is even in major debate if he had anything beyond 1991 that was of sufficient quantity or quality to deem that he even POSSESSED WMDs after that date.

Funny nobody reported about this story! How the hell did that happen?

7: Remember the lovely coloring book like illustrations of mobile weapons making labs that he presented to the Security Council? Remember how he showed you those satellite photos of the decontamination vehicles. Did you know that they've fact checked Powell's information?

8: You guys want to color EVERYBODY that says, "Hey wait a minute, none of this was TRUE," as a bunch of morons. Funny coming from guys that still believe it even though there is not ONE shread of evidence to support the WMD argument. Farah doesn't have EVIDENCE. He has some "source". BRING ME THE EVIDENCE. PRODUCE IT. Otherwise just move it along like Bush did (why didn't he cart out Farah to explain this funneling thing to us) to the, "He was a bad man," argument. Sure that's not the REASON WE WENT (because nobody would have agreed to it) but now that we're there what the hell... right?

9: Gentlemen, I kick you in the nuts and send you to the mat hard in every argument we ever have and still you maniacs somehow think you're on a moral and intellectual high-ground. You're as deluded in your assessment of the outcome of our debates as you are in your belief that G.W. has the goods on WMDs. HERE ARE THE FACTS AS THEY ARE KNOWN. I stated them. Your facts are CRAP... where are the WMDs? I'll say it again and again and again. You can tell me Santa Claus took them to the North Pole but you better have some HARD FACTS AND INTEL to support it.

Looks like Little Grasshopper is on top, Game, Set, Match.

1: I'm not saying it myself. I have no first hand knowlege of this. I am providing the link so all can see other news besides that which is on CNN etc.... Take the links I post the way you want I don't care.

2: If you notice, I post links from a wide variety of sources including CNN.

3:The second link was just a follow up. I could care less if it supports the first link or not. I mainly posted it to see if someone would have any current info on the state of the syrian sanctions.

4: You know the phrase "Fear is the mind killer"? Well you fear the other sources because they may speak the truth. You fear to venture out from your safe haven that is the mainstream media. I read and watch things from all manner of sources. From average everyday sources all the way to radical babblings. I don't fear any source of information. I approach each and every source with an open mind. I will either agree with that source or disagree with it.

5,6,7,8: I'll get to these in a little bit.

9: I didn't know this was suppose to be a dirty street fight (no not the street that posts here ). Leave it to you to kick people in the nuts. As Triumph the insult dog has said, "My you've got quite an immagination." You're "facts" are just that "Yours" as is mine. How people handle the information I post is up to them. And that as they say is that.

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Brownback...... oh no... this can only end badly.

Foot Washing NUT. Nuff said.

Yip, Yip, I see little grasshopper is turning into little Chihuaua attack doggie, yip, yip......

Watch those ankles boys, he just might bite them.....

Cleanup on aisle 2 please..........


ROTFLMAO!! Oh no, that is going to send him into a tirade. oppps, I think it already has...

Me thinks someone is suffering from a massive superiority complex. (see next post).

[ 08-16-2004, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: LostInSpace ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow how profoundly.... clueless.

A street fight? Not my choice, seems that Jaguar needs to call people small while providing no plausible counter argument. Now the gloves are off. He wants to talk the talk well then he better be ready to walk the walk. Moderator? I don't care. You don't belittle people unless you're prepared to get it right between the eyes. And judging from the boulders that Jaguar is tossing and the OBVIOUS glass house he's living in, here comes the return volley.

Sorry kid but you're toast. Have a seat on the bench while I pound the tar out of Jaguar. Oh and I'm glad to see you vote in a Democratic stronghold too... ROFLMAO... no wonder why you guys are so pissed off. Three WASTED votes. Damn I am having the BEST DAY EVER!

Love ya.

Tak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow how profoundly.... clueless.

A street fight? Not my choice, seems that Jaguar needs to call people small while providing no plausible counter argument. Now the gloves are off. He wants to talk the talk well then he better be ready to walk the walk. Moderator? I don't care. You don't belittle people unless you're prepared to get it right between the eyes. And judging from the boulders that Jaguar is tossing and the OBVIOUS glass house he's living in, here comes the return volley.

Sorry kid but you're toast. Have a seat on the bench while I pound the tar out of Jaguar. Oh and I'm glad to see you vote in a Democratic stronghold too... ROFLMAO... no wonder why you guys are so pissed off. Three WASTED votes. Damn I am having the BEST DAY EVER!

Love ya.

Tak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Wow how profoundly.... clueless.

A street fight? Not my choice, seems that Jaguar needs to call people small while providing no plausible counter argument. Now the gloves are off. He wants to talk the talk well then he better be ready to walk the walk. Moderator? I don't care. You don't belittle people unless you're prepared to get it right between the eyes. And judging from the boulders that Jaguar is tossing and the OBVIOUS glass house he's living in, here comes the return volley.

Sorry kid but you're toast. Have a seat on the bench while I pound the tar out of Jaguar. Oh and I'm glad to see you vote in a Democratic stronghold too... ROFLMAO... no wonder why you guys are so pissed off. Three WASTED votes. Damn I am having the BEST DAY EVER!

Love ya.

Tak

ROFLMAO!!!

YOu ain't got the ammo dude, you also don't have the facts.

Oh please, let's see what you got, because you have been pitiful as hell in your responses. all you can do is ATTACK....

Well, yippy, bring it on, and don't jump too high, I still need those.....

Little Grasshopper, the liberal attack chihuaua, says that he is gonna bring it on.

Yip yip buddy, go right ahead.....ROFLMAO!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

Wow how profoundly.... clueless.

A street fight? Not my choice, seems that Jaguar needs to call people small while providing no plausible counter argument. Now the gloves are off. He wants to talk the talk well then he better be ready to walk the walk. Moderator? I don't care. You don't belittle people unless you're prepared to get it right between the eyes. And judging from the boulders that Jaguar is tossing and the OBVIOUS glass house he's living in, here comes the return volley.

Sorry kid but you're toast. Have a seat on the bench while I pound the tar out of Jaguar. Oh and I'm glad to see you vote in a Democratic stronghold too... ROFLMAO... no wonder why you guys are so pissed off. Three WASTED votes. Damn I am having the BEST DAY EVER!

Love ya.

Tak

ROFLMAO!!!

YOu ain't got the ammo dude, you also don't have the facts.

Oh please, let's see what you got, because you have been pitiful as hell in your responses. all you can do is ATTACK....

Well, yippy, bring it on, and don't jump too high, I still need those.....

Little Grasshopper, the liberal attack chihuaua, says that he is gonna bring it on.

Yip yip buddy, go right ahead.....ROFLMAO!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

ROTFLMAO!! Oh no, that is going to send him into a tirade. oppps, I think it already has...

Me thinks someone is suffering from a massive superiority complex. (see next post).

It's about time that he brought some actual facts instead of his hate bush BS.

Needs to defend Kerry, Attack Bush, needs to defend a position, attack Bush, needs to bring some facts to the table, attack Bush.

Yip, yip, little Bush attack chihuaua, bring up Kerry, attack Bush, yip, yip.

About fricking time I got him mad enough to actually back up his nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

ROTFLMAO!! Oh no, that is going to send him into a tirade. oppps, I think it already has...

Me thinks someone is suffering from a massive superiority complex. (see next post).

It's about time that he brought some actual facts instead of his hate bush BS.

Needs to defend Kerry, Attack Bush, needs to defend a position, attack Bush, needs to bring some facts to the table, attack Bush.

Yip, yip, little Bush attack chihuaua, bring up Kerry, attack Bush, yip, yip.

About fricking time I got him mad enough to actually back up his nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by street:

Kalshion, your entitled to your opinion, but you, "AGAIN" take my post as some kind of biblical format, for me.

I am sorry your so confused. It was merely an EXAMPLE, of HOW MANY COURT ACTIONS are in play, DUE to BUSH ideology. ALL of which, are being FOUGHT, in order to preserve YOUR constitutional RIGHTS.

OUR whole conversation, could be more plesant, If your views were'nt so warped, that you feel EVERYONE, but BUSH and FOX news were COMMUNIST.

There are MANY books on the market, which describe the various types of GOVERNMENT rule known. And you sure could USE a refresher course, in your attempt to identify them correctly.

There are HUGE differences, in SOCIALISM(ACLU's base ideology) and COMMUNISM(RULE BY COHERSIVE FORCE IDEOLOGY) and TOTALITARIANISM(ONE GOVERNMENT PARTY RULE- IDEOLOGY)

BUSH :expressing, and ACTIVELY demonstrating, a combination, of the latter TWO. ..........................DUH!!!

Did I just see what I thought I saw.

You actually think that Bush pushes communism and totalitarianism.

OMFG!! you do need a reality check.

At least you got the ACLU figured out though.

Bush taking out a totalitarian regime Iraq and Afghanistan, is not pushing a totalitarianistic agenda, otherwise he would have taken them over, and made them little duchies of the United states.

Oh that's right, it's all a conspiracy to take over the world and get the cash from the oil and oil pipelines.

Poor Street....

Reality check on Aisle 2, fantasyland please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by street:

Kalshion, your entitled to your opinion, but you, "AGAIN" take my post as some kind of biblical format, for me.

I am sorry your so confused. It was merely an EXAMPLE, of HOW MANY COURT ACTIONS are in play, DUE to BUSH ideology. ALL of which, are being FOUGHT, in order to preserve YOUR constitutional RIGHTS.

OUR whole conversation, could be more plesant, If your views were'nt so warped, that you feel EVERYONE, but BUSH and FOX news were COMMUNIST.

There are MANY books on the market, which describe the various types of GOVERNMENT rule known. And you sure could USE a refresher course, in your attempt to identify them correctly.

There are HUGE differences, in SOCIALISM(ACLU's base ideology) and COMMUNISM(RULE BY COHERSIVE FORCE IDEOLOGY) and TOTALITARIANISM(ONE GOVERNMENT PARTY RULE- IDEOLOGY)

BUSH :expressing, and ACTIVELY demonstrating, a combination, of the latter TWO. ..........................DUH!!!

Did I just see what I thought I saw.

You actually think that Bush pushes communism and totalitarianism.

OMFG!! you do need a reality check.

At least you got the ACLU figured out though.

Bush taking out a totalitarian regime Iraq and Afghanistan, is not pushing a totalitarianistic agenda, otherwise he would have taken them over, and made them little duchies of the United states.

Oh that's right, it's all a conspiracy to take over the world and get the cash from the oil and oil pipelines.

Poor Street....

Reality check on Aisle 2, fantasyland please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×