For those of you against the war....
#41
18secFerio
You have very Utopia views on the world...unfortunately that is not reality.
You have got to be kidding me! You really think this is the reason we are going to war with Iraq? Have you not listened to our President at all...he only mentions the reasons 3 or 4 times a day in various speaches...not to mention the countless times Ari Fleischer mentions it during the press briefings. Since you have missed it I will reiterate it for you...
1) Iraq has not destroyed its WMD which is in violation of 16 UN resolutions and they could be used against the US.
2) Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator that tortures, kills, gasses his own people.
No you have the left wing propaganda down pat...you listened well.
Let it be known that this is your translation. I have never called you unpatriotic and your conclusions, when based on 1/2 truths, are not 100% correct.
Ask any economist, or atleast according to the ones I had in college, it takes about 2 years for a Presidents economic policy to show its effects on the economy. What does that mean? The shitty economy is Clinton's fault because it was flushed down the toilet within the first two years of Bush's Presidency. And what about all the corporate irresponsibility that happend during the last two to three years of Clinton's watch? He did nothing to prevent that which is a large contributor to the mess we are in now. Had he not been so concerned with pardoning people for money and stealing white house furniture for his home in New York, the economy might be different. Even Al Gore knew the economy was shit and did not run in it...because he knew if he did he was certainly a 4 year President.
Please support some facts to back these statements up...this is the first time I have ever heard or read these reasons for Iraq's war with Iran, or Iraq's reason for invading Kuwait. NOONE has ever listed these as his reasons!
You have got to be kidding me again! You really believe this? Stop listening to the far left...even moderate liberals know that he has WMD as well as 76% of hte US population...that is why we are there. Live through a terrorist attack that affects you directly...I guarantee your views would change on this subject matter. Mine did!
Oh and ask anyone in the mdia where the bias lies and the overwhelming majority will tell you it is liberal. The New York Times uses the front page of its paper to daily spread liberal propaganda...even other liberal media outlets agree they take it too far. They ignore the real facts and find that one small one to support their left wing agenda and exploit it.
You have very Utopia views on the world...unfortunately that is not reality.
I see no point in risking American soldiers lives to protect our interests with Isreal and Oil.
1) Iraq has not destroyed its WMD which is in violation of 16 UN resolutions and they could be used against the US.
2) Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator that tortures, kills, gasses his own people.
Maybe I'm not listening to the propaganda?
translation: Not only are you wrong, you're also unpatriotic
What would Clintons lax pardons have to do with buyer confidence?
when he invaded Iran and Kuwait (the only 2 countries he has invaded) it was 1. for defense of himself and 2. to stop kuwait from over producing oil causing oil prices to plunge sending iraq into further economic trouble. Not to take over those countries.
First of all, if you still beleive Iraq has WMD, you're ludicris.
Oh and ask anyone in the mdia where the bias lies and the overwhelming majority will tell you it is liberal. The New York Times uses the front page of its paper to daily spread liberal propaganda...even other liberal media outlets agree they take it too far. They ignore the real facts and find that one small one to support their left wing agenda and exploit it.
#42
Oh and BTW...I just read this online...
Taken from here.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-war-rdp_x.htm
And if there was no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq why would the IRAQI military need chemical suits, gas masks, and atropene injectors?
Concerns over the use of chemical weapons spiked as MSNBC reported that Marines testing drinking water from the Euphrates River near Nasiriyah found large concentrations of cyanide and mustard agents. The network said Marine commanders believed it was a deliberate attempt to poison coalition troops.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-war-rdp_x.htm
And if there was no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq why would the IRAQI military need chemical suits, gas masks, and atropene injectors?
#43
Thread Starter
my bum is on the swedish!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Originally posted by DVPGSR
18secFerio
You have very Utopia views on the world...unfortunately that is not reality.
18secFerio
You have very Utopia views on the world...unfortunately that is not reality.
You have got to be kidding me! You really think this is the reason we are going to war with Iraq? Have you not listened to our President at all...he only mentions the reasons 3 or 4 times a day in various speaches...not to mention the countless times Ari Fleischer mentions it during the press briefings. Since you have missed it I will reiterate it for you...
1) Iraq has not destroyed its WMD which is in violation of 16 UN resolutions and they could be used against the US.
2) Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator that tortures, kills, gasses his own people.
1) Iraq has not destroyed its WMD which is in violation of 16 UN resolutions and they could be used against the US.
2) Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator that tortures, kills, gasses his own people.
No you have the left wing propaganda down pat...you listened well.
Let it be known that this is your translation. I have never called you unpatriotic and your conclusions, when based on 1/2 truths, are not 100% correct.
Ask any economist, or atleast according to the ones I had in college, it takes about 2 years for a Presidents economic policy to show its effects on the economy. What does that mean? The shitty economy is Clinton's fault because it was flushed down the toilet within the first two years of Bush's Presidency. And what about all the corporate irresponsibility that happend during the last two to three years of Clinton's watch? He did nothing to prevent that which is a large contributor to the mess we are in now. Had he not been so concerned with pardoning people for money and stealing white house furniture for his home in New York, the economy might be different. Even Al Gore knew the economy was shit and did not run in it...because he knew if he did he was certainly a 4 year President.
Please support some facts to back these statements up...this is the first time I have ever heard or read these reasons for Iraq's war with Iran, or Iraq's reason for invading Kuwait. NOONE has ever listed these as his reasons!
You have got to be kidding me again! You really believe this? Stop listening to the far left...
even moderate liberals know that he has WMD
as well as 76% of hte US population...
that is why we are there. Live through a terrorist attack that affects you directly...I guarantee your views would change on this subject matter. Mine did!
How exactly did you live through a terror attack?
Oh and ask anyone in the mdia where the bias lies and the overwhelming majority will tell you it is liberal. The New York Times uses the front page of its paper to daily spread liberal propaganda...even other liberal media outlets agree they take it too far. They ignore the real facts and find that one small one to support their left wing agenda and exploit it.
The way I see it. Iraq had nothing to do with that fateful day on 9-11. They still have yet to do anything to this country. the UN, maybe, but thats NOT in our benifit to mess with it.
Again, Bush knows that this war will altogether increase the likelyhood of terrorism, so whats his reason for going there...obviosly not to make this country a safer place. You tell me.
#44
Thread Starter
my bum is on the swedish!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Originally posted by DVPGSR
Oh and BTW...I just read this online...
Taken from here.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-war-rdp_x.htm
And if there was no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq why would the IRAQI military need chemical suits, gas masks, and atropene injectors?
Oh and BTW...I just read this online...
Taken from here.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...-war-rdp_x.htm
And if there was no chemical or biological weapons in Iraq why would the IRAQI military need chemical suits, gas masks, and atropene injectors?
Originally posted by 18secFerio
Chemical or Biological? Maybe...... But it's still not proven.
Chemical or Biological? Maybe...... But it's still not proven.
#45
18SecFerio
Believe what you want...when the WMD are found and put on display for the world to see you will have ZERO argument. You can believe what you want but soon you will see what the real world knows. You will have your proof soon enough.
Oh and Chem and Bio weapons are considered WMD. So when you say there are no WMD but there may be chem or bio it sounds a little hipocritical...so which is it?
Don't get so defensive...after all you are the one that has dealt with the fact we are on different sides.
At somepoint I hope you face reality...I guess you just need to touch and feel the WMD to realize our President is right. Then again you probably will never admit that he is right no matter how hard the evidence is stacked against you.
Believe what you want...when the WMD are found and put on display for the world to see you will have ZERO argument. You can believe what you want but soon you will see what the real world knows. You will have your proof soon enough.
Oh and Chem and Bio weapons are considered WMD. So when you say there are no WMD but there may be chem or bio it sounds a little hipocritical...so which is it?
Ok, now you're way out of line. Don't you dare for one second tell me what and what not to beleive. That is not in your area for you to tell me. In fact, it should be apparent as day that we're on opposite sides. Deal with it. I sure do.
At somepoint I hope you face reality...I guess you just need to touch and feel the WMD to realize our President is right. Then again you probably will never admit that he is right no matter how hard the evidence is stacked against you.
#46
18secFerio
Does this link change your mind at all?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...te-vials_x.htm
Does this link change your mind at all?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...te-vials_x.htm
#47
Thread Starter
my bum is on the swedish!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Originally posted by DVPGSR
18SecFerio
Believe what you want...when the WMD are found and put on display for the world to see you will have ZERO argument. You can believe what you want but soon you will see what the real world knows. You will have your proof soon enough.
18SecFerio
Believe what you want...when the WMD are found and put on display for the world to see you will have ZERO argument. You can believe what you want but soon you will see what the real world knows. You will have your proof soon enough.
Oh and Chem and Bio weapons are considered WMD. So when you say there are no WMD but there may be chem or bio it sounds a little hipocritical...so which is it?
WMD= Nuclear or something comperable
Chem and Bio weapons arn't quite WMD, to me. Just how I see it, so thats the context of it when I type it.
Don't get so defensive...after all you are the one that has dealt with the fact we are on different sides.
At somepoint I hope you face reality...
War is going to help that? Nope.
I guess you just need to touch and feel the WMD to realize our President is right.
Then again you probably will never admit that he is right no matter how hard the evidence is stacked against you.
#48
Originally posted by 18secFerio
to me:
WMD= Nuclear or something comperable
Chem and Bio weapons arn't quite WMD, to me. Just how I see it, so thats the context of it when I type it.
to me:
WMD= Nuclear or something comperable
Chem and Bio weapons arn't quite WMD, to me. Just how I see it, so thats the context of it when I type it.
http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html
With this in mind, I believe there have been plenty of recent reports that would tend to prove that Iraq does possess them.
David Liske
#49
Thread Starter
my bum is on the swedish!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 10,133
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, Texas
Originally posted by dliske
Unfortunately, your definition misses the mark. WMD DOES consist of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weaponry. Check this site out for definitions:
http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html
With this in mind, I believe there have been plenty of recent reports that would tend to prove that Iraq does possess them.
David Liske
Unfortunately, your definition misses the mark. WMD DOES consist of NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) weaponry. Check this site out for definitions:
http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1.html
With this in mind, I believe there have been plenty of recent reports that would tend to prove that Iraq does possess them.
David Liske
btw, it says this right on that page:
Further Reading: In an April 1998 article in Arms Control Today, Wolfgang Panofsky argues that the term weapons of mass destruction should be limited to nuclear weapons because of their unique destructive power.
#50
Originally posted by 18secFerio
You missed my point. I don't care what the actual definition is. I was letting people know when I say WMD, I do not mean chem or bio weapons.
btw, it says this right on that page:
so basiclly you backed me up. thanks :thumbup:
You missed my point. I don't care what the actual definition is. I was letting people know when I say WMD, I do not mean chem or bio weapons.
btw, it says this right on that page:
so basiclly you backed me up. thanks :thumbup:
David Liske