If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
The terrorists just love it when assholes like you make posts like that. Which terrorists? The ones we CREATED in Iraq? or the ones in pakistan that we allow political tiptoesing to keep us from going fully after? Chuck |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
As a mature adult, I am unable to separate the
Flag, the Presidency and the Country from each other......instead they are bundled up in one package. Mature? Not so sure. One key sign of growing up and maturing is the ability to take things apart, look at individual parts and judge things in more than just an absolute whole. To do otherwise is simplistic and child like. I love my country, but I think my president is a tool, and an idiot. I just wish he had stuck to hanging out off daddys money sniffing coke and being a cheerleader. He didnt endanger other peoples families that way. Chuck |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
memiki wrote:
You cannot separate the President from the Office of the President. If you insult the President, you insult the Office of the Presidency........you are just fooling yourself....... When you elect an idiot to the office of the President you end up with an idiot president. |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
John Wheaton scribed:
wrote in message ups.com... On Nov 1, 1:59 am, "John Wheaton" wrote: Ah but they do. Saddam refused to allow inspectors unfettered access, or settle the where abouts of "thousands of tonnes" of chemical weapons whne it was made quite clear that he would be deposed. Don't people understand bluffing and grand-standing? It was pretty obvious to me that in the weeks before the "war" Saddam had been pushed to the wall and had no more cards to play. He _had_ given in. "When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions." --Bill Clinton, July 22, 2003 FORMER PRESIDENT CLINTON is right about what he and the whole world knew about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programs. Read what Clinton said again. There is nothing in what he said that states 'he and the whole world' knew anything. There was a lot of stuff that was unaccounted for. That doesn't mean 'it' existed, or that it was missing...only that it was unaccounted for. Did we destroy it with bombings, etc? Clinton said , "We don't know." Please, John! Here's a little history that seems to have been completely forgotten in the frenzy of the past few months. You mean the past five years? snipped huge "story" culled from the ultra-right wing organ, The Weekly Standard -- Ed Jay (remove 'M' to respond by email) |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
"Dave Smith" wrote in message ... John Wheaton wrote: Ah but they do. Saddam refused to allow inspectors unfettered access, or settle the where abouts of "thousands of tonnes" of chemical weapons whne it was made quite clear that he would be deposed. The same argument applies to North Korea, etc.. Too many war-mongers. Ah you mention war-mongers so you do remember Saddam invading Iran and Kuwait. I am sure we all know about Saddam invading Kuwait. That was what led to the first Gulf War and his defeat led to that resolution. Saddam was under international control. You probably also remember the Iran-Iraq War where the US provided satellite information on Iranian troops positions so they could be targeted with WMDs. The US had no problem with WMDs being used by Iraq in that one. Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq using WMDs. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
"Ed Jay" wrote in message ... John Wheaton scribed: Read what Clinton said again. There is nothing in what he said that states 'he and the whole world' knew anything. There was a lot of stuff that was unaccounted for. That doesn't mean 'it' existed, or that it was missing...only that it was unaccounted for. Did we destroy it with bombings, etc? Clinton said , "We don't know." Please, John! We did know that it did exist at one point and now thousands of tonnes of WMDs remain accounted for. Period. Why I jumped in was because of the often told tale of the current administartion lying about WMDs. If they lied so then did the entire Clinton Administration as they stated the same things. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
John Wheaton wrote:
I am sure we all know about Saddam invading Kuwait. That was what led to the first Gulf War and his defeat led to that resolution. Saddam was under international control. You probably also remember the Iran-Iraq War where the US provided satellite information on Iranian troops positions so they could be targeted with WMDs. The US had no problem with WMDs being used by Iraq in that one. Please provide some verification that the US had no problem with Iraq using WMDs. http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/220.html During the Iran-Iraq war, the United States decided it was imperative that Iran be thwarted, so it could not overrun the important oil-producing states in the Persian Gulf. It has long been known that the United States provided intelligence assistance to Iraq in the form of satellite photography to help the Iraqis understand how Iranian forces were deployed against them. But the full nature of the program, as described by former Defense Intelligence Agency officers, was not previously disclosed. http://globalpolicy.igc.org/security...sseinindex.htm US intelligence helped Saddam’s Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks. |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
"John Wheaton" wrote
"Ed Jay" wrote in message John Wheaton scribed: Why I jumped in was because of the often told tale of the current administartion lying about WMDs. If they lied so then did the entire Clinton Administration as they stated the same things. Without in any way being drawn into a he said/he said debate, I'll just point out the lack of logic in the above statement. Clinton made his statement some 10 years before. It can be true and not be supportive of the statement by Bush if conditions changed in the intervening time, a change in conditions which has been claimed, supported, and appear to be true. At least, in all these years there's been no evidence to support the Adminsitraiton's contention that WMDs existed in anything approaching the numbers claimed. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
"memiki" wrote in message
oups.com... On Oct 31, 11:58 pm, "Jochen Kriegerowski" jochen-kriegerow...@t- online.de wrote: "memiki" schrieb Never forget: *You* are the boss, not the guy you hired! Jochen -- I appreciate your analogy, but this is no ordinary "employee" -- he has more power than his "boss"........and the company for whom he works is no ordinary company Actually, Miki, _he_ doesn't. The people whom he represents and for whom he works do. You - "The People" - hold the power in your nation. Not a man, not even a group of men. The checks and balances in the system aren't perfect but they do make the presumption again and again that no one man or group willl ever "rule' the nation. If you think he's more powerful than the those who employ him for a short time, then you don't see a Presient, you see a King. And the Founding Fathers would be revolving right now if that were the case. :-) |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Fire!
"Icono Clast" wrote
That position might not be unique to you but I've never heard of such a thing. I regard each of them as distinct and separate. I think it resembles the Catholics' trinity and the separateness thereof by other Christians. ?????? What a strange statement! Are you suggesting the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is not shared by other Christians? The doctrine of the Trinity is a fundamental Christian belief. The Catholic Church is a sub-set of "Chrisitan", not distinct and separate from it, and as such shares that fundamental belief. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ship's Tour Of My Universe To Begin - Call To Arms! Duty Stations! Fire When Ready! Cease Fire Procola! Pt III/III | Akmed | USA & Canada | 0 | March 23rd, 2007 01:24 AM |
Ship's Tour Of My Universe To Begin - Call To Arms! Duty Stations!Fire When Ready! Cease Fire Procola! Pt. II/III | proteanthread | USA & Canada | 0 | March 22nd, 2007 02:37 PM |
If WTC 7 came down from fire and debris .. | Tom Peel | Air travel | 0 | March 18th, 2006 04:26 PM |
If WTC 7 came down from fire and debris .. | Dan | Air travel | 0 | March 15th, 2006 09:01 PM |
Fire in LA | Roland Schmidt | USA & Canada | 47 | November 14th, 2003 05:58 PM |