US just canceled UN vote, Bush to address nation at 8PM tonight

[Alistar7]

we picked up 80% of the tab for desert storm, the 20% the rest of the world MIGHT kick in wouldn't cover the cost to keep our forces idle in position for that long, not too mention the undesirable effect on a force ready for action. The UN was given 12 years to complete the task, they have failed to stand by their word. One only has to look at France agreeing with other ww2 allies to help protect each other from communist aggression if needed, as THEY did in Vietnam. Once again the US was there, as they promised, where was the rest who pledged their support? Would France have come to anothers aid and kept their word then? LOL, they bailed out of Vietnam and it was THEIR province, that's when we should have left as well. History repeates itself yet again, France pledges their support for unconditional full compliance with the CERTAINTY of severe consequences if not met, then conviently left their balls at home when it came time to cash the check.....

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
we picked up 80% of the tab for desert storm, the 20% the rest of the world MIGHT kick in wouldn't cover the cost to keep our forces idle in position for that long, not too mention the undesirable effect on a force ready for action. The UN was given 12 years to complete the task, they have failed to stand by their word. One only has to look at France agreeing with other ww2 allies to help protect each other from communist aggression if needed, as THEY did in Vietnam. Once again the US was there, as they promised, where was the rest who pledged their support? Would France have come to anothers aid and kept their word then? LOL, they bailed out of Vietnam and it was THEIR province, that's when we should have left as well. History repeates itself yet again, Frances pledges their support for unconditional full compliance with the CERTAiNTY of sever consequences if not met, then conviently leave their balls at home when it's time to cash the check.....

Don't know where you got that from. It is almost certainly inverted. Out international partners picked up the vast majority of the cost of the war (gulf 1). We paid perhaps 20%.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Get used to this BTW, Iran is next. Worldwide, human rights and world health organizations all readily agree the clear evidence of Iran's actions point solely in the pursuit of the creation of a nuclear bomb, not energy purposes. There shouldn't be a problem linking Iran to terrorists though, and equally likely Bush will not allow them to achieve this goal.

This is credible. Iran is almost certainly supporting the al-quaida sect in northern iraq (no other place to get supplies from). Although there are a lot more revolutionary rumblings in iran, they pose a much more substantial risk to our interests than iraq. On the other hand, I have doubts about us immedately following a war with iraq with a war on iran. Iran, in contrast to iraq, isn't completely in ruins. It has biological weapons, probably effective means of delivery, and has a scary ass gov't. This also means, it's going to be a hell of a lot harder to take over iran than it will be to take over iraq.

This is why now is definitely time to act. By creating a democratic neighbor, as well as helping push another prominent member of the region into democratic reform we will increase the amount if internal dissent within Iran. The largest segment, the youth, are completely dissaffected and calling for democartic reform. They have become alienated from the religously dominated and controlled goverment rule and are actively seeking secular rule. I can't see us moving on Iran for at least another year or two, not until progress is seen in Iraq. Hopefully by then they will be under so much internal pressure they will willingly allow reform.

 

[tcsenter]

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

yes... and that's why there's so much protest. The logic behind our labelling of Gulf war 2 "pre-emptive" is extremely tenuous. More likely it is preventative, which would fall into the first category.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

THEY ARE IN HIS COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY? I would agree there is little evidence to directly tie the two together beyond that, if I could only forget about known Al-queda members calling their relatives from state sponsored military hopsitals (his best no less) in downtown Baghdad, explain this one MCFLY.....I wil try to follow along as you try to worm your way out of that one.

There are links to other groups, probably much more likely, that share Saddam's geopolitical views that he undeniably aids and supports. His public payoffs of families of PLO suicide bombers can be considered nothing less than giving comfort and aidto those associated with terrorism. Does it matter what the goal is or what ideaology a particular TERRORIST group holds? In my opinion they are all equally dangerous to world security.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

But the admin. goes to great lengths to convince the public otherwise. Why the hell were Spain and Portagul at the press conference yesterday?? They're not helping in any way. Its called window dressing.

For posterity, for the record. That press conference was not so important to demonstrate who was there, but more to show who wasn't there.

Cohen's just another war-mongering oil-grabbing Republican bored of kicking orphans and old ladies into the gutter.

Umm, McFly, William Cohen was Secretary of Defense under the Clinton Administration. He was a Clinton appointee.

He was a republican senator from Maine appointed by Clinton as part of his "bipartisanship" mea culpa after the collective middle finger given to him by the electorate during the '94 elections.

It's called sarcasm.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

www.un.org - read up buddy boy...

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

THEY ARE IN HIS COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY? I would agree there is little evidence to directly tie the two together beyond that, if I could only forget about known Al-queda members calling their relatives from state sponsored military hopsitals (his best no less) in downtown Baghdad, explain this one MCFLY.....I wil try to follow along as you try to worm your way out of that one.

There are links to other groups, probably much more likely, that share Saddam's geopolitical views that he undeniably aids and supports. His public payoffs of families of PLO suicide bombers can be considered nothing less than giving comfort and aidto those associated with terrorism. Does it matter what the goal is or what ideaology a particular TERRORIST group holds? In my opinion they are all equally dangerous to world security.

Yeah... just like al-quaida were and probably are in the US. Does that make them state sponsored? Not only that, but the base is CLEARLY in a area that is beyond Saddam's range of influence. It is almost certain that this particular sect is being supported by Iran and not Iraq.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

THEY ARE IN HIS COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY? I would agree there is little evidence to directly tie the two together beyond that, if I could only forget about known Al-queda members calling their relatives from state sponsored military hopsitals (his best no less) in downtown Baghdad, explain this one MCFLY.....I wil try to follow along as you try to worm your way out of that one.

There are links to other groups, probably much more likely, that share Saddam's geopolitical views that he undeniably aids and supports. His public payoffs of families of PLO suicide bombers can be considered nothing less than giving comfort and aidto those associated with terrorism. Does it matter what the goal is or what ideaology a particular TERRORIST group holds? In my opinion they are all equally dangerous to world security.

THEY WERE TRAINED IN YOUR COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY THE US, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

You are an idiot.. simply an idiot... and probably just an idiot... with no opinions of your own, just what you read on teh INTARWEB...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

www.un.org - read up buddy boy...

Boy, sorry the reporter who covered the story, spoke with BOTH the al-queda living in the Kurdish region, as well as the Kurds themselves who have engaged in minor conflicts with them is the basis for the information. He did not work for the UN and they won't have anything about it on their site so whats your point of the lazy link. I am going back into the threads to link you to the article itself, if you have a problem with the legitmiacy, take it up with the publisher and the PEOPLE HE INTERVIWED AND LIVED WITH FOR A SHORT TIME, in BOTH SEPARATE CAMPS.

Once again I love how you dodge the question, I gave you a CLEAR link to al-queda and Saddam, the hospital phone calls, still waiting for your response BOY>>>>

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

THEY ARE IN HIS COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY? I would agree there is little evidence to directly tie the two together beyond that, if I could only forget about known Al-queda members calling their relatives from state sponsored military hopsitals (his best no less) in downtown Baghdad, explain this one MCFLY.....I wil try to follow along as you try to worm your way out of that one.

There are links to other groups, probably much more likely, that share Saddam's geopolitical views that he undeniably aids and supports. His public payoffs of families of PLO suicide bombers can be considered nothing less than giving comfort and aidto those associated with terrorism. Does it matter what the goal is or what ideaology a particular TERRORIST group holds? In my opinion they are all equally dangerous to world security.

Yeah... just like al-quaida were and probably are in the US. Does that make them state sponsored? Not only that, but the base is CLEARLY in a area that is beyond Saddam's range of influence. It is almost certain that this particular sect is being supported by Iran and not Iraq.

Ahhh, but you forgot, teh Iran is nada teh enemy teh iraki is, doh, so da bomb is gonna fall on dem... got taht?

 

[spaceman]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

THEY ARE IN HIS COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY? I would agree there is little evidence to directly tie the two together beyond that, if I could only forget about known Al-queda members calling their relatives from state sponsored military hopsitals (his best no less) in downtown Baghdad, explain this one MCFLY.....I wil try to follow along as you try to worm your way out of that one.

There are links to other groups, probably much more likely, that share Saddam's geopolitical views that he undeniably aids and supports. His public payoffs of families of PLO suicide bombers can be considered nothing less than giving comfort and aidto those associated with terrorism. Does it matter what the goal is or what ideaology a particular TERRORIST group holds? In my opinion they are all equally dangerous to world security.

THEY WERE TRAINED IN YOUR COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY THE US, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

You are an idiot.. simply an idiot... and probably just an idiot... with no opinions of your own, just what you read on teh INTARWEB...

hahaha, Snap-Off is riled again!
some advice Snapface:


DEAL!

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

www.un.org - read up buddy boy...

Boy, sorry the reporter who covered the story, spoke with BOTH the al-queda living in the Kurdish region, as well as the Kurds themselves who have engaged in minor conflicts with them is the basis for the information. He did not work for the UN and they won't have anything about it on their site so whats your point of the lazy link. I am going back into the threads to link you to the article itself, if you have a problem with the legitmiacy, take it up with the publisher and the PEOPLE HE INTERVIWED AND LIVED WITH FOR A SHORT TIME, in BOTH SEPARATE CAMPS.

Once again I love how you dodge the question, I gave you a CLEAR link to al-queda and Saddam, the hospital phone calls, still waiting for your response BOY>>>>

Suck it buddy boy, check out the headquarters of the world... you can kick, you can scream, the truth will still be told...

Why BOY?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

THEY ARE IN HIS COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY? I would agree there is little evidence to directly tie the two together beyond that, if I could only forget about known Al-queda members calling their relatives from state sponsored military hopsitals (his best no less) in downtown Baghdad, explain this one MCFLY.....I wil try to follow along as you try to worm your way out of that one.

There are links to other groups, probably much more likely, that share Saddam's geopolitical views that he undeniably aids and supports. His public payoffs of families of PLO suicide bombers can be considered nothing less than giving comfort and aidto those associated with terrorism. Does it matter what the goal is or what ideaology a particular TERRORIST group holds? In my opinion they are all equally dangerous to world security.

THEY WERE TRAINED IN YOUR COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY THE US, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

You are an idiot.. simply an idiot... and probably just an idiot... with no opinions of your own, just what you read on teh INTARWEB...

Your logic is terribly flawed, but very amusing none the less. So we trained some of those people, well, we trained Timothy McVeigh and still imprisioned him didn't we? There is a dramatic difference between the two. According to your logic If I were to train you in Hop Ki Do and you went out and killed someone in an illegal manner using the training I gave you I WOULD BE EQUALLY LIABLE. You are responsible for your own actions...

They are supported by the US, they meaning the Kurds, but the kurds are not part of the al-queda operatives living in Iraq... How clear is that link then?????? They live separate and are ENEMIES.... we support the kurds, can't you keep this distinciton straight?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: ncircle

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

THEY ARE IN HIS COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY? I would agree there is little evidence to directly tie the two together beyond that, if I could only forget about known Al-queda members calling their relatives from state sponsored military hopsitals (his best no less) in downtown Baghdad, explain this one MCFLY.....I wil try to follow along as you try to worm your way out of that one.

There are links to other groups, probably much more likely, that share Saddam's geopolitical views that he undeniably aids and supports. His public payoffs of families of PLO suicide bombers can be considered nothing less than giving comfort and aidto those associated with terrorism. Does it matter what the goal is or what ideaology a particular TERRORIST group holds? In my opinion they are all equally dangerous to world security.

THEY WERE TRAINED IN YOUR COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY THE US, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

You are an idiot.. simply an idiot... and probably just an idiot... with no opinions of your own, just what you read on teh INTARWEB...

hahaha, Snap-Off is riled again!
some advice Snapface:


DEAL!

I'm cool sh!tface...

I just have a problem with idiots who think they are the masters of the world , you know, like GW...

The worlds biggest terrorist atm is called GW, nobody can do anything about it though, as he walks into an agressive war, one we hoped we would never see from a civilised state, i guess we were all wrong...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

THEY ARE IN HIS COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY? I would agree there is little evidence to directly tie the two together beyond that, if I could only forget about known Al-queda members calling their relatives from state sponsored military hopsitals (his best no less) in downtown Baghdad, explain this one MCFLY.....I wil try to follow along as you try to worm your way out of that one.

There are links to other groups, probably much more likely, that share Saddam's geopolitical views that he undeniably aids and supports. His public payoffs of families of PLO suicide bombers can be considered nothing less than giving comfort and aidto those associated with terrorism. Does it matter what the goal is or what ideaology a particular TERRORIST group holds? In my opinion they are all equally dangerous to world security.

THEY WERE TRAINED IN YOUR COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY THE US, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

You are an idiot.. simply an idiot... and probably just an idiot... with no opinions of your own, just what you read on teh INTARWEB...

Your logic is terribly flawed, but very amusing none the less. So we trained some of those people, well, we trained Timothy McVeigh and still imprisioned him didn't we? There is a dramatic difference between the two. According to your logic If I were to train you in Hop Ki Do and you went out and killed someone in an illegal manner using the training I gave you I WOULD BE EQUALLY LIABLE. You are responsible for your own actions...

They are supported by the US, they meaning the Kurds, but the kurds are not part of the al-queda operatives living in Iraq... How clear is that link then?????? They live separate and are ENEMIES.... we support the kurds, can't you keep this distinciton straight?

Oh fvcking please, you cannot be that ignorant, how many times has it been stated where people were trained at to make the countries they were trained at seem like terrorist nations.. no, not even you can be that stupid...

You really want this discussion, so let's go right ahead, who made Saddam's future, who trained Osama, which nation has trained more terrorists than any other nation?

Which nation is the target?

Do you get the point? do you understand that if you piss more people off more people will be pissed off? is that a good way to decrease terrorism?

Do you even have a brain you idiot...you support and have supported the east-northern KURDS WHICH HARBOUR AL QUAIDA TERRORISTS.. get that you imbecil? do you understand that, you support the very force that has acted against you while you fight the force who are acting against them?

ENGLISH MUTHAFVCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT? Then you understand... hopefully...

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Beware of the darkside. Seriously, anger and polarized rhetoric assures nothing but status-quo (in this case continuing legitimacy for a short sighted president).

Also, we're not little children here. There's no santa clause, and our hands are not clean. Too often we have to choose between the lesser of two evils. But it IS necessary to act. We can't simply shut the rest of the world out. We must address the systemic problems in the middle east. But we need to have a real strategy, not just a lot of bravado.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

THEY ARE IN HIS COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY? I would agree there is little evidence to directly tie the two together beyond that, if I could only forget about known Al-queda members calling their relatives from state sponsored military hopsitals (his best no less) in downtown Baghdad, explain this one MCFLY.....I wil try to follow along as you try to worm your way out of that one.

There are links to other groups, probably much more likely, that share Saddam's geopolitical views that he undeniably aids and supports. His public payoffs of families of PLO suicide bombers can be considered nothing less than giving comfort and aidto those associated with terrorism. Does it matter what the goal is or what ideaology a particular TERRORIST group holds? In my opinion they are all equally dangerous to world security.

THEY WERE TRAINED IN YOUR COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY THE US, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

You are an idiot.. simply an idiot... and probably just an idiot... with no opinions of your own, just what you read on teh INTARWEB...

Your logic is terribly flawed, but very amusing none the less. So we trained some of those people, well, we trained Timothy McVeigh and still imprisioned him didn't we? There is a dramatic difference between the two. According to your logic If I were to train you in Hop Ki Do and you went out and killed someone in an illegal manner using the training I gave you I WOULD BE EQUALLY LIABLE. You are responsible for your own actions...

They are supported by the US, they meaning the Kurds, but the kurds are not part of the al-queda operatives living in Iraq... How clear is that link then?????? They live separate and are ENEMIES.... we support the kurds, can't you keep this distinciton straight?

Oh fvcking please, you cannot be that ignorant, how many times has it been stated where people were trained at to make the countries they were trained at seem like terrorist nations.. no, not even you can be that stupid...

You really want this discussion, so let's go right ahead, who made Saddam's future, who trained Osama, which nation has trained more terrorists than any other nation?

Which nation is the target?

Do you get the point? do you understand that if you piss more people off more people will be pissed off? is that a good way to decrease terrorism?

Do you even have a brain you idiot...you support and have supported the east-northern KURDS WHICH HARBOUR AL QUAIDA TERRORISTS.. get that you imbecil? do you understand that, you support the very force that has acted against you while you fight the force who are acting against them?

ENGLISH MUTHAFVCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT? Then you understand... hopefully...

I would suggest once again you read the washington post article from the reporter LIVING in the region right now. There are al-queda in northern Iraq, some of them have a Kurdish lineage. They are very distinct an separate ideaologically from the Kurds the US actively supports. One only has to look at Afghanistan to see this type of conflict with small groups within a larger area either due to different racial heritage or religous views. These two groups will more than likely begin fighting against each MORE SO THAN THEY ARE RIGHT NOW once we invade Iraq. Al-queda will fight on Saddam's behalf, but only to the extent they want to kill the same Kurds Saddam does, but not under his command or direct knowledge. The tension between these two groups was the FOCUS of the article. I would love to see (link) any information on this the UN has...

I am not denying we havent trained people who LATER became terrorists, such as Osama, however he was trained to help LIBERATE Afghanistan from Soviet occupation. I know we helped to put Saddam in place, as we did Castro, is it our fault they changed their ways once in power or after some time? I am not denying our policies don't have alot to do with the way we are perceived, Our policies are changing, especially in the Israel area, the largest obstacle to middle east stability and anti-Us sentiment.
However we are hardly responsible for fundamentalists seizing power in Iran and ruining what was a good diplomatic relationship the US enjoyed for quite some time until then.

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: Zipp

This "it's been 12 years - far too long" stuff is a bunch of BS. The reason we wanted him to disarm in the first place was so that he wouldn't be able to launch another attack on someplace like Kuwait. Here it is 12 years later, and he hasn't attacked anybody. It makes the issue of whether he has weapons or not moot, since he's obviously not using them.

Saddam more than likely has a chit load of pretty bad chemical and biological weapons hidden and eventually he's going to be sick of being contained. Or his son will when he takeover.

Christ,even Clinton said he could hand it off to someone though he didn't do much about it:


1998 interview w/Jim Lehrer

Think how many can be killed by just a tiny bit of anthrax, and think about how it's not just that Saddam Hussein might put it on a Scud missile, an anthrax head, and send it on to some city he wants to destroy.

Think about all the other terrorists and other bad actors who could just parade through Baghdad and pick up their stores if we don't take action.

Bill Clinton

I think this is funnier


"Former President Clinton lost the codes to nuclear war the day the Monica Lewinsky affair broke, was MIA in the fall of 1998 when a decision was needed on the killing of Osama bin Laden, and was "too busy watching a golf match" to OK a 1996 bombing mission in Iraq, says a blockbuster new book by Clinton's former military aide. Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, who carried the nuclear "football" from May 1996 to May 1998, crosses a line no other "mil aide" has before in condemning his commander in chief in Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security."

 

[Evadman]

I am SO glad I have been practicing hiding under my 3/4" particle board desk.

 

[isaacmacdonald]

Originally posted by: Evadman
I am SO glad I have been practicing hiding under my 3/4" particle board desk.

lol

 

[Alistar7]

Did you see Saddam plans on dressing Iraq forces in US and UK military uniforms? So when he goes and slaughters more dissidents he can film the whole event as proof of US and UK "atrocities". The rest of the world is right, he has changed his ways, no wonder they want to see a solution that involves him keeping hisword and staying in power, he just needs 12 more years. All this crying about the action about to take place, yet HAS ANYONE PROPOSED AN ALTERNATIVE THAT EVERYONE AGRESS WOULD WORK?. NO. THE ONLY THING THEY CAN AGREE UPON IS SADDAM HASNT COMPLIED AND IS IN MATERIAL BREACH. They did agree it was the last last last last, lol, chance, but failed to realize in doing so AUTHORIZED the return of force. The important thing to remember is the American position is LEGAL and MORALLY right, and we don't need UN support and certainly no assistance in this effort. The rest of you might as well climb up a tree and start eating your cheese....

 

[Raiden256]

Originally posted by: isaacmacdonald

Originally posted by: Gr1mL0cK
Sadaam: What happen?
Iraqi Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb
Iraqi Operator: We get signal
Sadaam: What !
Iraqi Operator: Main screen turn on
Sadaam: It's You !!
Bush: How are you gentlemen !!
Bush: All your base are belong to us
Bush: You are on the way to destruction
Sadaam: What you say !!
Bush: You have no chance to survive make your time
Bush: HA HA HA HA ....

If nothing else that certainly captured Bush's capacity for oration.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

[MinorityReport]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Ehhh, the northern kurds (supported by the US) has links to Al quiada, Irak does not...

You missed the point, McFly. I was essentially saying there are few if any Al-Qaeda links to Hussein. Try to follow along with the discussion?

The rules are both implied and expressed... the UN was created against agressive attacks and invasions...

The UN was created to serve as a deterrent to future world aggressors who attack other nations unprovoked and without good cause (e.g. Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Stalin). It was not created to prevent armed conflict, or wars, nor even invasions, nor pre-emptive attacks.

THEY ARE IN HIS COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY? I would agree there is little evidence to directly tie the two together beyond that, if I could only forget about known Al-queda members calling their relatives from state sponsored military hopsitals (his best no less) in downtown Baghdad, explain this one MCFLY.....I wil try to follow along as you try to worm your way out of that one.

There are links to other groups, probably much more likely, that share Saddam's geopolitical views that he undeniably aids and supports. His public payoffs of families of PLO suicide bombers can be considered nothing less than giving comfort and aidto those associated with terrorism. Does it matter what the goal is or what ideaology a particular TERRORIST group holds? In my opinion they are all equally dangerous to world security.

THEY WERE TRAINED IN YOUR COUNTRY, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

THEY WERE SUPPORTED BY THE US, how less clear of a link do you want MCFLY?

You are an idiot.. simply an idiot... and probably just an idiot... with no opinions of your own, just what you read on teh INTARWEB...

Your logic is terribly flawed, but very amusing none the less. So we trained some of those people, well, we trained Timothy McVeigh and still imprisioned him didn't we? There is a dramatic difference between the two. According to your logic If I were to train you in Hop Ki Do and you went out and killed someone in an illegal manner using the training I gave you I WOULD BE EQUALLY LIABLE. You are responsible for your own actions...

They are supported by the US, they meaning the Kurds, but the kurds are not part of the al-queda operatives living in Iraq... How clear is that link then?????? They live separate and are ENEMIES.... we support the kurds, can't you keep this distinciton straight?

Oh fvcking please, you cannot be that ignorant, how many times has it been stated where people were trained at to make the countries they were trained at seem like terrorist nations.. no, not even you can be that stupid...

You really want this discussion, so let's go right ahead, who made Saddam's future, who trained Osama, which nation has trained more terrorists than any other nation?

Which nation is the target?

Do you get the point? do you understand that if you piss more people off more people will be pissed off? is that a good way to decrease terrorism?

Do you even have a brain you idiot...you support and have supported the east-northern KURDS WHICH HARBOUR AL QUAIDA TERRORISTS.. get that you imbecil? do you understand that, you support the very force that has acted against you while you fight the force who are acting against them?

ENGLISH MUTHAFVCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT? Then you understand... hopefully...

snapIT,

USA has trained more terrorists in the world than any other nation. But it was aganst the so called "evil" comminist empire hence it can be justified

I was in kashmir last june and they caught 3 US citizens who were trying to fight Jihad in Kashmir,. God knows what hapened after that ..it never came in CNn or any US news .. but I know their graves are now marked with small US flags in Jammu if you go visit. They met a very very very bad death .. Indian army's torture will make osama convert to judaism in few seconds.

Do no worry, this war will be all from air and hardly few causlaities will occur against US troops.

But if Iraq launches a chemical/bio/nuke/WMD attack against ISrael, then the war will take a new turn.

I mean if Israel nukes Mecca in return for Tel aviv's destruction, what do you think the freindly arab nations will do ?

Pakistan is boiling now .. I know general Musharraf's cousins here in NY/NJ. They are busy buying $500k houses in NY/Nj suburbs getting ready to run any moment the hammer falls on them.


Just wait and watch, BUsh will be in so much fukign trouble, he will quit office voluntarily.

However, if thinsg go well then he will be praised.

So wait and watch. That is all we can do .. other than keyboard nazism on forums.