Are we going to be nuked at election time?

Right on the mark...What's new Dale?

 

Again Yes & No, Assama & Mullah ***** want to rule over ignorant inbred morons.

As for themselves, Did you see photos of Mullah A holes palace ? TV, AC, Jacuzzi's while his people live in poverty & ignorance. So they are not against a western lifestyle as long as they are the only ones enjoying it. AHoles

Thats tells me that these 2 are nothing but hypocritical pirates, demagouges, & Killers.

 

I don't.

Bob

 

Ok Bob, what MORE would be sufficient? Would he have to kill infant children on live TV? Do tell...

 

<<If Saddam had 1 truckload of WMDs(enough to take out major world cities), who thinks it would be easy to hide them all over a country full of sand? Needle in a haystack doesn't even begin to describe the situation.


Who DOESN'T think this is sufficient to remove Saddam?>>

Your first paragraph says it. If he had them he would have used them. Now, if we want to start a different national dialog about "taking him out because he was a bad guy" they we can. But congress gave the green light (and the money) because he had WMD. It was a lie.

Bob

 

My father came to America with less then $20 on a student visa (albeit not from a middleeast, but a kinda close Islamic country) and built himself up from there. His hard work and insane hours allowed me to have the life I enjoy today. The countless people he has helped inspires me to do so much more. The only time he ever went back was after the death of my Grandmother and the death of my uncle, his brother.

I ask you to please explain yourself, as to some, your words are very offensive.

 

What on Earth are you trying to say in your post?

 

What are you trying to say? Someone would destroy the holy sites of a religion because it was used as the exuse to attack? That is so absurd that it doesnt make sense. Would Protestants target the Vatican in a similar fashion?

 

Actually, using Pakistan, as an example, extermist elements rarely get more then 5-10% of the vote, and thats pakistan figures, where elections are completely messed up...

 

callahan,
saddam did use some wmd on his own citizens, hence the common supposition that he was prepared to use them on his enemies.

once again, if you think that wmd was a lie then you must think bush, and countless other world leaders including clinton and kerry, are evil, conniving and sneaky. and if that were true, why would they not have planted wmd evidence to support their case; why did they not suppress the kay report? make up your mind - bush is either really evil or he's not.

 

Or did you ever consider that he began hiding weapons months before we actually invaded in hopes that inspectors would not find them and we would go away, only for him to recover them once he wasn't under the microscope? No, thats impossible, why would he be smart like that? Hmmmm...

 

Who thinks that the violence in Iraq will be significantly reduced by the June 30th deadline?

 

Exactly, as I said 2 pages back.. there are millions of square miles of sand and to hide arms is NOT TOO DIFFICULT. As for the comment "if he had them he would have used them..." well that just demonstrates your lack of information on this subject. He did use them, on his own people, and he KNEW better than to use them on our guys in '91 and '03 because he was told to do that would certainly bring about the nuclear retaliation chip.

Nevertheless, still no one from the left has an answer as to WHY all your poster boys agreed from 1994 until 2003 with ALL the statements regarding Iraq and Saddam BUT now they are doing a 180.

 

Tifosi69,
Poster boy? I have been called many things but never poster boy :

Sure he had WMD (if you want to call gas WMD) we sold it to him. He used it against Iran and Iran used gas against Iraq. When the Kurds started to make trouble and wanted their own country he lobbed a few gas filled shells at them. We (the USA) had no problem with it at the time. He was our ally. The only people that complained and tried to tell the world about what had happened were the human rights groups (read liberals).

Iraq had been saying that they distroyed there WMD (gas and chemicals) in complience with the cease fire agreement in '91. It appears to be true. We have been there for a year now, have interogated basically everbody and have found NO WMD. We never will.

To say that Clinton etc. all thought he had WMD therefore are liars too is avoiding what Bush did. While many people that had no direct access to current intelgence data (like congress) believed Bush when he said "WE KNOW IRAQ HAS WMD, WE KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, WE KNOW THEY HAVE DIRECT TIES WITH AL QAIDA, AND IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING NOW, ST. LOUIS COULD HAVE A MUSHROOM CLOUD OVER IT" Now we know that the CIA told Bush and Cheney those statements did not reflect reality.

Bush did not care if Saddam had WMD or not. The troops were already there, and our intellegence (from Chabali) said they would be recieved as liberators and strewn with flowers. Bush listened to the intelgence that he wanted to hear (mostly from the convicted criminal Chabali).

How come nobody is discussing the reason the Arab countries what WMD? It is NOT to attack the USA, it to defend themselves against Israel who BTW have around 200 nukes, or enough to lay waste to the entire middle east. If we showed half the commitment toward non-proliflication with Israel as we do with the rest of the world, the Arab countries might be willing to forgo their plans to build a nuke.

Tifosi69, I may have a better understanding of the issues and history than you think.

Bob

 

Bob, by "poster boys" I was referring to Kerry, Fat Boy Kennedy, Tom Daschle, Barney "the pole smoker" Frank, Bill and Hitlary Clinton, et al.

Sorry for the confusion.

 

thats right bob, we should have done something about saddam killing the kurds. its a shame we didn't.
then how does the logic turn around that we should not have gone in there last year? i guess the statute of limitations for righting the wrong of a dictator was up in your opinion.

so if kerry agreed with bush and co. that there were weapons of mass destruction and it is well documented that he did, and then he subsequently voted to go to war, are you going to hold him accountable to the same extent as bush, and therefore not vote for him either?

just trying to figure out your logic (or lack thereof) here. please explain how it works in your opinion.

 

With all due respect Bob you are incorrect. Even the socialist America-hating Hans Blix said as recently as last night that the weapons were there, they were not destroyed in '91 AND he said that Saddam was a LIAR and he was playing mind games with the UN inspectors all along.

Again, a thouroughly misinformed statement. Take a civics class, Congressional leaders meet with the President and his cabinet routinely and ARE given access to the SAME information in REAL TIME that the President has. That includes covert ops, surveillance, human and artificial intelligence, etc. It is then their job to go back to the entire body as well as their various subcommittees and report what is going on. Are you claiming that the Senate Intelligence committee and the House Armed Services Committee and their respective leadership has no idea what is going on? Do you really believe that ANY President, from ANY party, acts unilaterally when it comes to matters of military action? Again, read up on HOW the government really works and how the executive and legislative branch interact BEFORE you make such incorrect statements. This is part and parcel what is wrong with this country: people who have the RIGHT to vote but are not properly equipped to do so. So that is why for all these years the poverty pimps on the left can spout off about the evil, pro-rich right and get the terribly misinformed all stirred up.

 

Don't forget to address this statement guy's

Quote: "How come nobody is discussing the reason the Arab countries what WMD? It is NOT to attack the USA, it to defend themselves against Israel who BTW have around 200 nukes, or enough to lay waste to the entire middle east. If we showed half the commitment toward non-proliflication with Israel as we do with the rest of the world, the Arab countries might be willing to forgo their plans to build a nuke"

The reason Isreal has nukes is becasue they are surrounded by Arab enimies who have been trying to oust them since Isreal became a nation! Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

 

You are correct. I can only assume that anti-Semitism is behind why people always bring up Israel whenever we discuss anything to do with tha Middle East. Not necessarily directed at Bob, just in general on the political front. BTW, I'm an Italian Catholic so I have no horse in that race.

 

Completely false logic. This is no better than a race pimp shouting "racism" when we try to discuss affirmative action. Red herring and intellectually lazy.

 

As I stated my comments were not directed at ANYBODY on this board, rather the general world of geo-politics. If you think anti-Semitism is NOT alive and well talk to law enforcement in Germany, Spain, France and several others about what is currently going on there. Again, I am not Jewish so I am neutral on the subject, but what do you suggest? BTW, it's the guys on the left that are historically the race and poverty pimps. (Insert Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, "Screwy" Louie Farrakhan, et al.)

 

Well it may or may not be anti-semitisim but I don't think anyone would argue that the Arabs would like nothing more than the total destruction of Isreal!

 

Still waiting for an answer on this one.... hello.. anybody home?

 

Tifosi69,

I have no clue what you're refering to regarding Blix saying there the WMD were there. Do you mean in 91? And why do you describe him as "socialist America-hating"?

And as far a taking a civics class...this president (and other presidents) take unilateral military action all the time. AND, the president has much more intel at his diposal than any congressman.

And finally, Tifosi69, you continue to make posts that are condesending and insulting to others on this board who have varing opinions to you. I suspect that you may not be as smart or intellegent as you think you are. I respect your view points and do not always disagree with them. But, you must do the same, otherwise it becomes a shouting match providing no real discussion of the issues.

Best regards,

Bob

 

This has nothing to do with what I stated. Did you mis-read my post?

1) Of course anti-Semitism is alive and well - where did I imply it wasn't?
2) You don't have to be Jewish to care about anti-Semitism. I'm a Protestant and I am offended by anti-Semitism.
3) Of course race and poverty pimps are lefties - isn't that obvious?

I stand by my original statement. Questioning Israeli policy does not = anti-Semitism.

By the same token, much as the Limbaugh/Coulter et al minions would like it to be, questioning American policy does not = traitor, anti-American or a "Bush hater".

Unfortunately the right has adopted the tactic favoured by the left, i.e. change the course of debate by attacking the person raising the question. We all hate it when the left does it - am I the only person who hates it when the right does it?