Or at the very least, we should stop invading countries that had nothing to do with 9/11. That seems to be most of you troll neocons downfall. You still insist and in light of all contrary evidence that Al-quida=Iraq and it's people. KingDumb.
Originally posted by: Format C:
Maybe its not my comprehension but your poor attempt at execution. Perhaps you could clarify this comment...Originally posted by: Zephyr106
Originally posted by: Format C:
No, let us not. YOU may be willing to sit on your ass and gamble with your and everyone else's life allowing terrorists a second chance to see if they can pull a repeat, or perhaps one magnitudes worse, but anyone realizing the true significance of 9/11 isn't. You can go make nice nice with them, share a hug, and give peace a chance if you'd like but those of us who've been forcibly knocked out of complacency intend to support those who are going to try and wipe them from the face of the earth.Originally posted by: Zephyr106
The largest Qaeda attacks before September 11th were the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, and the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. The largest Qaeda attack after 9/11 appears to be the Bali, Indonesia bombing, the Madrid train bombings. Al-Qaeda appears to possess a similar capability before and after the 9/11 attacks. I have always maintained that the 9/11 attacks were a real fluke, a once in history feat for Al-Qaeda. They were much more destructive and more elaborate than any other attack they have carried out. Let us hope I am right.
Maybe you have trouble comprehending English, troll? No where do I suggest the ridiculous things you suggest. Invading Iraq does not further the war against Al-Qaeda, and may have even helped Al-Qaeda in terms of recruitment and sympathy.
Zephyr
...As written, and taken in context with your other comments, you seem to be suggesting that we should just sit back and stop worrying about terrorist attacks because they probably won't be able to hit us again.I have always maintained that the 9/11 attacks were a real fluke, a once in history feat for Al-Qaeda.
Originally posted by: Format C:
Very well said Edge3D. As an old fogey it does my heart good to know that the lesson of 9/11 didn't escape the notice of a younger generation.
Klixxer, you can repeat that Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11 from now to eternity if you'd like but that still won't make it true. Iraq has everything to do with 9/11, everything. I'll grant you though that only those who are able to view the larger picture through a lense of objectivity and realism can see that fact.
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: leeboy
RIP, I don't think you get it. No matter what you post, is does not and will not ever justify attacking a sovereign nation. Never. We are all left with the feeling of "Who is next" with this administration. Get over it, you live by a different set of rules.
Germany and Japan were sovereign nations. Should we have not attacked them either?
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: Edge3D
It did seem like a joke. Did it not? I mean, if you dont remember why removing Saddam has made us safer you have a much worse memory than the already famous American societal short-term memory.
I'll go ahead and state why I think he was a threat to us.. but if you arent convinced already, I dont know why you are asking as I doubt you're going to be changing your mind anytime soon.
I'm here to be as friendly as possible with you guys but it seems anything Pro-Bush or Pro-American is scorned by mobviolence around here.
That is fine, if you guys prefer to quell any ideas or thoughts that dont agree with yours and prefer to smash people down with replies like "blah blah blah" (as SMASHING of a reply as that might be), then you might as well talk to a tree about your leftist ideals because all the conservatives will simply leave the forum.
Anyway, in response to your question- The war was fought for two reasons, first for 9/11 named an axis of evil and declared if you read the national security strategy paper of the US, you will see we live in a world where terrorists can deliver WMD to the US, we don't have borders, we have millions of containers coming in that don't get inspected, one nuclear device (which are getting smaller and smaller), one canister of anthrax or nerve gas delivered by a terrorist to the US will kill tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people. Saddam Hussein is our declared enemy and he had the programs to develop these weapons, there's no disputing that.
We've only examined a dozen or so of the 120 sites. We don't know if the weapons he had are in Syria or Iran. We know he was developing them. So we know he was a threat.
He has aligned himself with Al Qaeda, even though he modeled himself after Mussolini literally. The Bathst party is a fascist party modeled on Italian fascism and German fascism of the 30s. That's who Saddam Hussein is. He later years began speaking in Islamic martyrdom, financing suicide bombers, anybody involved in suicide bombers is involved in radical Islam. That's what its about.
He was in defiance of 17 UN resolutions including one that by Dec 7th 2002 (4 months before he was attacked) he had to deliver a report accounting for the weapons that Hans Blix and the UN inspectors knew he had and he didn't do that. That's why we went to war. Any candidate who accuses the president of lying or bringing us to war on under false circumstances and killing American troops for no reason, by that very statement should be disqualified for running for president, and is himself an enemy to this country.
The only reason, we have not had a terrorist attack in the United States and Americans have not died in this country, is because George Bush has taken the war to the enemy camp. He took it to Afghanistan, he took it to Iraq. We have fought Al-Qaeda in Tikrit and Basra instead of New York and Washington. He has eliminated 2/3rds of the Al Qaeda leadership, he has them so off balance that the only attacks they are capable of are in Muslim countries where there are so many of them.
If you are not convinced, or even THINKING about this.. then you might as well go pay a visit to that tree I referred you too.
No proof of connections to Al Quaida, no proof of WMD's (the wmd threat was based on falsified information), he payed all palestinian families that had a family member killed. (BTW, SA does the same, but being friendly with the US has it's perks, you get to torture your population and support terrorism as much as you please)
You can't use UN resolutions without getting the UN involved, period.
Show me ONE piece of evidence that ONE single member of Al Quaida has been killed in Tikrit or Basra.
Not ONE of the leaders of Al Quaida have been caught in Iraq.
I think you are mistunderstanding something here, the war on terror is important, no one disputes that, but Iraq has nothing to do with it, the war on terror and the WMD lie was used to justify an aggressive war against a soverign nation, if you were to take a look at the laws of the organization whose resolutions you are using for support you would see that this war was indeed illegal under international law.
A MUCH more logical step would be to send forces into Pakistan, which is where most of Al Quaida was after Afghanistan and probably are today.
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: leeboy
RIP, I don't think you get it. No matter what you post, is does not and will not ever justify attacking a sovereign nation. Never. We are all left with the feeling of "Who is next" with this administration. Get over it, you live by a different set of rules.
Germany and Japan were sovereign nations. Should we have not attacked them either?
Good comparision. Keep playing. Pft
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: Edge3D
It did seem like a joke. Did it not? I mean, if you dont remember why removing Saddam has made us safer you have a much worse memory than the already famous American societal short-term memory.
I'll go ahead and state why I think he was a threat to us.. but if you arent convinced already, I dont know why you are asking as I doubt you're going to be changing your mind anytime soon.
I'm here to be as friendly as possible with you guys but it seems anything Pro-Bush or Pro-American is scorned by mobviolence around here.
That is fine, if you guys prefer to quell any ideas or thoughts that dont agree with yours and prefer to smash people down with replies like "blah blah blah" (as SMASHING of a reply as that might be), then you might as well talk to a tree about your leftist ideals because all the conservatives will simply leave the forum.
Anyway, in response to your question- The war was fought for two reasons, first for 9/11 named an axis of evil and declared if you read the national security strategy paper of the US, you will see we live in a world where terrorists can deliver WMD to the US, we don't have borders, we have millions of containers coming in that don't get inspected, one nuclear device (which are getting smaller and smaller), one canister of anthrax or nerve gas delivered by a terrorist to the US will kill tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people. Saddam Hussein is our declared enemy and he had the programs to develop these weapons, there's no disputing that.
We've only examined a dozen or so of the 120 sites. We don't know if the weapons he had are in Syria or Iran. We know he was developing them. So we know he was a threat.
He has aligned himself with Al Qaeda, even though he modeled himself after Mussolini literally. The Bathst party is a fascist party modeled on Italian fascism and German fascism of the 30s. That's who Saddam Hussein is. He later years began speaking in Islamic martyrdom, financing suicide bombers, anybody involved in suicide bombers is involved in radical Islam. That's what its about.
He was in defiance of 17 UN resolutions including one that by Dec 7th 2002 (4 months before he was attacked) he had to deliver a report accounting for the weapons that Hans Blix and the UN inspectors knew he had and he didn't do that. That's why we went to war. Any candidate who accuses the president of lying or bringing us to war on under false circumstances and killing American troops for no reason, by that very statement should be disqualified for running for president, and is himself an enemy to this country.
The only reason, we have not had a terrorist attack in the United States and Americans have not died in this country, is because George Bush has taken the war to the enemy camp. He took it to Afghanistan, he took it to Iraq. We have fought Al-Qaeda in Tikrit and Basra instead of New York and Washington. He has eliminated 2/3rds of the Al Qaeda leadership, he has them so off balance that the only attacks they are capable of are in Muslim countries where there are so many of them.
If you are not convinced, or even THINKING about this.. then you might as well go pay a visit to that tree I referred you too.
No proof of connections to Al Quaida, no proof of WMD's (the wmd threat was based on falsified information), he payed all palestinian families that had a family member killed. (BTW, SA does the same, but being friendly with the US has it's perks, you get to torture your population and support terrorism as much as you please)
You can't use UN resolutions without getting the UN involved, period.
Show me ONE piece of evidence that ONE single member of Al Quaida has been killed in Tikrit or Basra.
Not ONE of the leaders of Al Quaida have been caught in Iraq.
I think you are mistunderstanding something here, the war on terror is important, no one disputes that, but Iraq has nothing to do with it, the war on terror and the WMD lie was used to justify an aggressive war against a soverign nation, if you were to take a look at the laws of the organization whose resolutions you are using for support you would see that this war was indeed illegal under international law.
A MUCH more logical step would be to send forces into Pakistan, which is where most of Al Quaida was after Afghanistan and probably are today.
Klixxer, everyone in the world said he had WMD. Germany, France, the UN, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi, the CIA, 10 Downing, and the man of many chins- Ted Kennedy.
So when you say that the war was based upon the "WMD lie", then you're either naive, or just plain disingenuous.
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: leeboy
RIP, I don't think you get it. No matter what you post, is does not and will not ever justify attacking a sovereign nation. Never. We are all left with the feeling of "Who is next" with this administration. Get over it, you live by a different set of rules.
Germany and Japan were sovereign nations. Should we have not attacked them either?
Good comparision. Keep playing. Pft
Some people do not get the difference between world wide aggressive warfare attacking and an itty bitty nation under containment being attacked by a superpower when they got all their weapons destroyed beforehand.
I think that was the point of the last inspections, to make sure as few as possible would be injured by an invasion, because the invasion was set to go ten+ years earlier.
That is what i think, to prove it, hmmm... i could bring up the plans, but no one would care, i could bring up the non threat, but no one would care, i could bring up that the UN said wait but no, the UN is irrelevant, i just hope the UN rememberes this when the US comes begging for peacekeepers and NATO troops, because i have no wish to go.
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: leeboy
RIP, I don't think you get it. No matter what you post, is does not and will not ever justify attacking a sovereign nation. Never. We are all left with the feeling of "Who is next" with this administration. Get over it, you live by a different set of rules.
Germany and Japan were sovereign nations. Should we have not attacked them either?
Good comparision. Keep playing. Pft
Some people do not get the difference between world wide aggressive warfare attacking and an itty bitty nation under containment being attacked by a superpower when they got all their weapons destroyed beforehand.
I think that was the point of the last inspections, to make sure as few as possible would be injured by an invasion, because the invasion was set to go ten+ years earlier.
That is what i think, to prove it, hmmm... i could bring up the plans, but no one would care, i could bring up the non threat, but no one would care, i could bring up that the UN said wait but no, the UN is irrelevant, i just hope the UN rememberes this when the US comes begging for peacekeepers and NATO troops, because i have no wish to go.
Originally posted by: digiram
Originally posted by: Edge3D
Originally posted by: conjur
Same problems people have faced in Cuba, North Korea, Egypt, Tibet and a number of other places.
Guess we should grow the military by ten-fold and do some more invadin'!!
You are correct.
Iraq was the first step in bringing freedom and democracy to the world. This should have been done a long time ago when Clinton ignored the call to Jihad against the West.
Erasing the harsh, desolate conditions that the people of the middle east live under will eradicate the desperate fanaticism we are up against and that have attacked us on 9/11.
Desperate conditions equate to desperate measures.
Even as the hawk that President Bush is, he does not do enough. We are not doing enough for the people in the world living under brutal dictators. Though I understand Bush's POV, he MUST remain in office next term because EVERYTHING is on the line this election.. the honor of our nation, the future of freedom in Iraq.
Free societys are a GOOD thing. Bringing that freedom to people, contary to radical leftist belief (who prefer "equal" socialist societys) is not a crime.
I for one believe that instituting a democracy in Iraq will start a domino effect across the middle east in time. No one is going to stick with their old ways once they taste freedom and a taste of the "evil" capitalist dollar.
This war has been a STUNNING blow to leftists across the world.
William Clinton should have taken the 1996 declaration of Jihad to kill all Jews and Westerners seriously.
Alas, it was not and now we are taking care of his mistakes.
To me, that was the reason for his stained legacy, not the Monica scandal and not even the economic boom he had sucessfully destroyed by the end of his 2nd term.
It truly was a shame.
What if someone were to invade our Country, and claimed that our capitalist society has corrupted and destroyed our people. As a propaganda tool, they tell us that they are going to take away the wealth of all of the rich ceo, and redistribute it amongst everyone in the country. What do you think will happen here, in the good ol US of A??
Well, there will be those of us that retaliate (mostly folks that benefit from this type of society, as well as people that just love the country) , and they will be called terrorists. Also, there will be those that rejoice(people from the projects), and they will be displayed, by the invading country's media, as the people that were liberated.
My point is, there is no such thing as a perfect economic system. As great as capitalism is, it has it's flaws. We love this economic system because we've grown up with it, and don't know how it would be like to live in a different type of system. Now, just because we love it so much, it doesn't mean that everyone else in the world will. Therefore, we shouldn't force people to live the way we live. Because we wouldn't like it, if it were the other way around.
BTW, if you really believe that liberation is the main reason for invading Iraq, you must be smoking something.
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: leeboy
RIP, I don't think you get it. No matter what you post, is does not and will not ever justify attacking a sovereign nation. Never. We are all left with the feeling of "Who is next" with this administration. Get over it, you live by a different set of rules.
Germany and Japan were sovereign nations. Should we have not attacked them either?
Good comparision. Keep playing. Pft
Some people do not get the difference between world wide aggressive warfare attacking and an itty bitty nation under containment being attacked by a superpower when they got all their weapons destroyed beforehand.
I think that was the point of the last inspections, to make sure as few as possible would be injured by an invasion, because the invasion was set to go ten+ years earlier.
That is what i think, to prove it, hmmm... i could bring up the plans, but no one would care, i could bring up the non threat, but no one would care, i could bring up that the UN said wait but no, the UN is irrelevant, i just hope the UN rememberes this when the US comes begging for peacekeepers and NATO troops, because i have no wish to go.
You do realize that Bill Clinton had contingency plans in place to attack Iraq don't you? So don't put the honus exclusively on Bush. So what if either of them did? You act like Saddamn was a kid playing in his tub with his rubber ducky. He was far from that so quit pretending.
Saddamn obfuscated his weapons programs, and surreptitiously built his stockpiles. At every turn and corner he played his little game with the world for over 10 years. He was, and still is an effing lier.
As for the UN peacekeepers, well, I can barely contain my laughter. The US has ALWAYS pulled the lion's share both financially and militarily within the UN- especially since the USSR folded. The same applies to NATO.
Who had to clean up YOUR MESS in Bosnia? Milosevic's mass graves didn't seem to matter to the power brokers in the European community when it was right in their own back yard, so why all the fuss now about Iraq?
We're trying to clean up a mess that the French and Germans weren't willing to deal with in Iraq. I think they need to shut their freaking pie-holes. ESPECIALLY in light of the breaking Oil-For-Food scandal.
The UN- give me an effing break.
They do have the choice. All they have to do is make the sacrifices needed to change their society. Now if they aren't willing to make those sacrifices why should we have to for them?Originally posted by: hokiezilla
What a bunch of relativist hooey. In effect, what you're saying is that democracy, in the general sense, is on equal footing to a barbaric, totalitarian regime like that of Saddamn. That is patently ridiculous IMO.
The US, hell, the whole of western civilization is for the most part superior to what the people of Iraq and many other people live under.
You can call me ethnocentric, egocentric, jingoistic, or whatever. It won't disguise the fact that some societies ARE superior to others in the opportunities that they offer their citizens. This doesn't mean that we, as individual US citizens are superior; but our collective society IS superior in almost every respect.
I'm not saying that everyone will thrive under capitalism. However, they should have the choice shouldn't they?
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: leeboy
RIP, I don't think you get it. No matter what you post, is does not and will not ever justify attacking a sovereign nation. Never. We are all left with the feeling of "Who is next" with this administration. Get over it, you live by a different set of rules.
Germany and Japan were sovereign nations. Should we have not attacked them either?
Good comparision. Keep playing. Pft
Some people do not get the difference between world wide aggressive warfare attacking and an itty bitty nation under containment being attacked by a superpower when they got all their weapons destroyed beforehand.
I think that was the point of the last inspections, to make sure as few as possible would be injured by an invasion, because the invasion was set to go ten+ years earlier.
That is what i think, to prove it, hmmm... i could bring up the plans, but no one would care, i could bring up the non threat, but no one would care, i could bring up that the UN said wait but no, the UN is irrelevant, i just hope the UN rememberes this when the US comes begging for peacekeepers and NATO troops, because i have no wish to go.
You do realize that Bill Clinton had contingency plans in place to attack Iraq don't you? So don't put the honus exclusively on Bush. So what if either of them did? You act like Saddamn was a kid playing in his tub with his rubber ducky. He was far from that so quit pretending.
Saddamn obfuscated his weapons programs, and surreptitiously built his stockpiles. At every turn and corner he played his little game with the world for over 10 years. He was, and still is an effing lier.
As for the UN peacekeepers, well, I can barely contain my laughter. The US has ALWAYS pulled the lion's share both financially and militarily within the UN- especially since the USSR folded. The same applies to NATO.
Who had to clean up YOUR MESS in Bosnia? Milosevic's mass graves didn't seem to matter to the power brokers in the European community when it was right in their own back yard, so why all the fuss now about Iraq?
We're trying to clean up a mess that the French and Germans weren't willing to deal with in Iraq. I think they need to shut their freaking pie-holes. ESPECIALLY in light of the breaking Oil-For-Food scandal.
The UN- give me an effing break.
Excuse me officer, what is your rank and where are you stationed? A kiddie in the middle of safe house USA? Great, and you are taking a dump on soldiers who preserve peace all around the world, NICE.
Let me guess, Bosnia wasn't part of former Yugoslavia which was part of the Warzaw pact, an that is not Russias problem, not US problem but some countries in Europes problem? Explain to me how this is NOT Russias problem to begin with.
Well guess what, I WAS THERE, i was in Kosovo and Afghanistan too.
You are what is known as a tough man behind the keyboard, now get your ass down there and sign up or STFU!
The US attacked a soverign nation unprovoked, period, there are now resolutions begging for UN troops and NATO troops, ehm, your mess, clean it up yourselves, i will rather serve time than clean your dirty laundry.
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: Klixxer
Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: hokiezilla
Originally posted by: leeboy
RIP, I don't think you get it. No matter what you post, is does not and will not ever justify attacking a sovereign nation. Never. We are all left with the feeling of "Who is next" with this administration. Get over it, you live by a different set of rules.
Germany and Japan were sovereign nations. Should we have not attacked them either?
Good comparision. Keep playing. Pft
Some people do not get the difference between world wide aggressive warfare attacking and an itty bitty nation under containment being attacked by a superpower when they got all their weapons destroyed beforehand.
I think that was the point of the last inspections, to make sure as few as possible would be injured by an invasion, because the invasion was set to go ten+ years earlier.
That is what i think, to prove it, hmmm... i could bring up the plans, but no one would care, i could bring up the non threat, but no one would care, i could bring up that the UN said wait but no, the UN is irrelevant, i just hope the UN rememberes this when the US comes begging for peacekeepers and NATO troops, because i have no wish to go.
You do realize that Bill Clinton had contingency plans in place to attack Iraq don't you? So don't put the honus exclusively on Bush. So what if either of them did? You act like Saddamn was a kid playing in his tub with his rubber ducky. He was far from that so quit pretending.
Saddamn obfuscated his weapons programs, and surreptitiously built his stockpiles. At every turn and corner he played his little game with the world for over 10 years. He was, and still is an effing lier.
As for the UN peacekeepers, well, I can barely contain my laughter. The US has ALWAYS pulled the lion's share both financially and militarily within the UN- especially since the USSR folded. The same applies to NATO.
Who had to clean up YOUR MESS in Bosnia? Milosevic's mass graves didn't seem to matter to the power brokers in the European community when it was right in their own back yard, so why all the fuss now about Iraq?
We're trying to clean up a mess that the French and Germans weren't willing to deal with in Iraq. I think they need to shut their freaking pie-holes. ESPECIALLY in light of the breaking Oil-For-Food scandal.
The UN- give me an effing break.
Excuse me officer, what is your rank and where are you stationed? A kiddie in the middle of safe house USA? Great, and you are taking a dump on soldiers who preserve peace all around the world, NICE.
Let me guess, Bosnia wasn't part of former Yugoslavia which was part of the Warzaw pact, an that is not Russias problem, not US problem but some countries in Europes problem? Explain to me how this is NOT Russias problem to begin with.
Well guess what, I WAS THERE, i was in Kosovo and Afghanistan too.
You are what is known as a tough man behind the keyboard, now get your ass down there and sign up or STFU!
The US attacked a soverign nation unprovoked, period, there are now resolutions begging for UN troops and NATO troops, ehm, your mess, clean it up yourselves, i will rather serve time than clean your dirty laundry.
It may HAVE BEEN the former Soviet Union's problem. But like I said junior, Warsaw pact or not, it was in your backyard- not ours. Can you say GENOCIDE?
Tough man behind the keyboard eh? F U euroboy.
As for the UN or our "allies" in NATO, well, what can I say. The irony here is so thick I'm about to choke. We have propped up NATO and the UN for decades. We devoted men, material, and BILLIONS of dollars (MY TAX DOLLARS) to help ensure you weren't ran over by 10,000 T-72's. I would rather go it alone. That way we don't have to listen to all of the pissing and moaning from France and Germany.
The Brits and Americans are the only grown-ups in the world right now. It's time for the petulant children of Europe- the French and Germans, to grow the F up and take some responsiblity.
Well Klixxer you make him sound like he's such a great guy we should be friends with him.Was it funny when you got on the wrong side with Bin Ladin? Was that fun?
Originally posted by: TipsyMcStagger
So klixxer no proof of WMD's right? what about the 4 liters of Sarin gas found in that shell in Iraq? Are you going to tell me that was just some left over that Sadam accidentally forgot to destroy with his other stockpiles?
Or is 4 liters such an insignificant amount that it doesnt count. Not to mention that 4 liters of Sarin properly mixed and detonated could kill 20,000 people
No links between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
Well Klixxer you make him sound like he's such a great guy we should be friends with him.Was it funny when you got on the wrong side with Bin Ladin? Was that fun?
IIRC, it's called Melba toast. (At least that's what we gave our babies when they were teething.)Originally posted by: leeboy
Originally posted by: TipsyMcStagger
So klixxer no proof of WMD's right? what about the 4 liters of Sarin gas found in that shell in Iraq? Are you going to tell me that was just some left over that Sadam accidentally forgot to destroy with his other stockpiles?
Or is 4 liters such an insignificant amount that it doesnt count. Not to mention that 4 liters of Sarin properly mixed and detonated could kill 20,000 people
No links between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
Well Klixxer you make him sound like he's such a great guy we should be friends with him.Was it funny when you got on the wrong side with Bin Ladin? Was that fun?
* noobie cookie *
Exactly.Originally posted by: TipsyMcStagger
So klixxer no proof of WMD's right? what about the 4 liters of Sarin gas found in that shell in Iraq? Are you going to tell me that was just some left over that Sadam accidentally forgot to destroy with his other stockpiles?
First, as I understand it, it wasn't four liters of Sarin. It may have been up to four liters of two components to make Sarin, but that's not quite the same. < /pedantic >Or is 4 liters such an insignificant amount that it doesnt count. Not to mention that 4 liters of Sarin properly mixed and detonated could kill 20,000 people
That's the best you can do? An op-ed from the conservative, big business, Bush-loving WSJ? Please.
:roll:Well Klixxer you make him sound like he's such a great guy we should be friends with him.Was it funny when you got on the wrong side with Bin Ladin? Was that fun?
Originally posted by: TipsyMcStagger
So klixxer no proof of WMD's right? what about the 4 liters of Sarin gas found in that shell in Iraq? Are you going to tell me that was just some left over that Sadam accidentally forgot to destroy with his other stockpiles?
Or is 4 liters such an insignificant amount that it doesnt count. Not to mention that 4 liters of Sarin properly mixed and detonated could kill 20,000 people
No links between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
Well Klixxer you make him sound like he's such a great guy we should be friends with him.Was it funny when you got on the wrong side with Bin Ladin? Was that fun?
Originally posted by: Edge3D
Originally posted by: conjur
Erasing the harsh, desolate conditions that the people of the middle east live under will eradicate the desperate fanaticism we are up against and that have attacked us on 9/11.
Well, some terrorists activate in Saudi Arabia - where the conditions are even better than in the US of A. And there are terrorists that are richer than the average american. Also, the terrorists used large amounts of money to act against the US of A, so they are not poor at all.
By the way, what about the harsh desolate conditions in which the bomber of Oklahoma City lived? You should start solving things at your home before trying to invade others
Calin