Main > Everything Else
Lost: 380 tons of high explosives - Last seen in Iraq
danny_galaga:
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on November 01, 2004, 12:28:04 am ---
--- Quote from: danny_galaga on November 01, 2004, 12:17:23 am ---P.S: how did you know i was a sparky? ;)
--- End quote ---
your browneyelashes gave you away.....long, flowing, but just a bit too much "color" :-X
The identifying marks of a "sparky" ;D
--- End quote ---
damn you're good ;) . of course a bigger clue would be the crazy afro i sport from being electrocuted so many times...
Dexter:
--- Quote from: Santoro on October 31, 2004, 07:26:06 pm ---
This is the reason I started the Sept 11 thread. People are in complete and utter denial about what happened that day, and about what the US is up against.
--- End quote ---
People are also in denial about why it happened. OBLs reasons for attacking America have nothing to do with hating your freedom. They were to protest and draw attention to American interference in the middle-east. The loss of life on 9/11 was terrible, but to slaughter 100,000 Iraqis in the name of the victims as bush does is sickening. The guy has so much power, hopefully if he manages to get elected this time he'll have the decency to call this thing an evangelical crusade against the muslim world, and at least earn some brownie points for being honest.
TA Pilot:
I will let you in on a little secret. The US is not "the world". Only the US and the UK government believed Bush's claims. The rest of the world did NOT and that's why the UN did not sanction the invasion.
One must then wonder:
Why did UNSCR 1441 pass 15-0?
French, German and Russian intel all supported the intel we and the UK had. No one questioned the existence of the WMDs - the only question was what to do about them, and THAT question only came up once it became clear Bush was willing to go into Iraq to solve the problem.
No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism. If you think military action is going to prevent terrorism than you are sadly mistaken.
Interesting.
Does this make Kerry "sadly mistaken"?
And how else to you propose we "deal" with terrorists?
patrickl:
--- Quote from: TA Pilot on November 01, 2004, 12:23:49 pm ---I will let you in on a little secret. The US is not "the world". Only the US and the UK government believed Bush's claims. The rest of the world did NOT and that's why the UN did not sanction the invasion.
One must then wonder:
Why did UNSCR 1441 pass 15-0?
--- End quote ---
That one only said that Saddam didn't allow inspectors in and didn't give a full report on how the WMD were destroyed. It does not say there were WMD in Iraq, just that there was no proof they weren't there. Don't try to pull that nonsens on us again.
Besides, I was talking about the resolution the US tried to get for invading Iraq. That was later and by that time it was already clear that the US had no reliable intel on where theWMD were. Hans Blix had searched and found nothing based on the "solid" tips of the US. After that it was perfectly clear that there were most likely no WMD, or at least that the US had NO intel on where the WMD were even.
--- Quote ---No, you should learn from these threads since the rest of the world has had a lot more experience in dealing with terrorism. If you think military action is going to prevent terrorism than you are sadly mistaken.
Interesting.
Does this make Kerry "sadly mistaken"?
And how else to you propose we "deal" with terrorists?
--- End quote ---
I already explained how to deal with terrorists, or at least how to try to.
TA Pilot:
That one only said that Saddam didn't allow inspectors in and didn't give a full report on how the WMD were destroyed. It does not say there were WMD in Iraq, just that there was no proof they weren't there. Don't try to pull that nonsens on us again.
UNSCR 1441 labels Iraq a threat:
"Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"
And then, there's David Kay:
"KAY: Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here...
...I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war -- certainly, the French president, Chirac, as I recall in April of last year, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German certainly -- the intelligence service believed that there were WMD.
It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgment, and that is most disturbing."
So:
French, German and Russian intel all supported the intel we and the UK had. No one questioned the existence of the WMDs - the only question was what to do about them, and THAT question only came up once it became clear Bush was willing to go into Iraq to solve the problem.
Besides, I was talking about the resolution the US tried to get for invading Iraq.
You mean the one they could not get, it now seems, because of French/German/Iraq/UN corruption?
Hans Blix had searched and found nothing based on the "solid" tips of the US. After that it was perfectly clear that there were most likely no WMD, or at least that the US had NO intel on where the WMD were even.
And then he said that "Iraq has not made the fundamental decision to disarm". If thats the case, then how could Iraq have disarmed?