bodypilot90 0 #51 March 17, 2003 and you believe SH when he says "great lie” that his country still has banned weapons." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #52 March 17, 2003 Quoteand you believe SH when he says "great lie” that his country still has banned weapons." so we're straight, i never made such a remark, or even remotely elluded to such a remark. sadaam's a lying SOB, plain and simple. in any event, attacking iraq (which we're going to do, no matter who's for/against it) without at least the 9 required votes is a mistake, a lethal mistake. Bush is little more than "the village idiot" he is not handling this affair properly. 12 years, 12 years have gone by...where were we? this is unacceptable, and we're going to pay, this is no joke. there won't be a moment's of peace on god's green earth. and i won't boycott anything from France, or germany. my ancestor's fled Germany to the USA in the 1800's for religous freedom.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #53 March 17, 2003 QuoteBush is little more than "the village idiot" he is not handling this affair properly. well I strongly disgree. I have shown evidence that SH has ties to the 9-11 crowd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #54 March 17, 2003 Quotesadaam's a lying SOB, plain and simple. i Nice to see that we agree on something. Quotein any event, attacking iraq (which we're going to do, no matter who's for/against it) without at least the 9 required votes is a mistake, a lethal mistake. Saddam will not be disarmed without force, however France has said that it will veto any resolution calling for the use of force. How do you propose that we get around this? QuoteBush is little more than "the village idiot" he is not handling this affair properly. 12 years, 12 years have gone by...where were we? this is unacceptable, and we're going to pay, this is no joke. there won't be a moment's of peace on god's green earth. Little more than the village idiot? You have information that he doesn't? Must be nice. You've said more than once that Bush isn't handling this affair properly yet I've never seen you offer a solution. Here's your chance Richard, what's your solution? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #55 March 17, 2003 that's good, i'm glad you "presented evidence" of ties to iraq and 09/11. on the other hand, evidence does not need to be "presented" on the 12 years, as it is historical fact. me, you, and every american in the US of A are to blame for that one.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #56 March 17, 2003 QuoteHere's your chance Richard, what's your solution? patience...if you go back in this thread, you'll see i have come up with several ideas. 12 years we had time to be proactive on this dissarming issue, and we let it slide. now out of the big middle of nowhere we are going to attack iraq. (in obvious retaliation for 09/11) let diplomacy do it's job. the inspector's are working daily, if we have to send in 20,000 inspector's so be it.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #57 March 17, 2003 Quotelet diplomacy do it's job it tried and in 12 years nada, time to let the real men handle it. Quotein obvious retaliation for 09/11 because they were involved Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #58 March 17, 2003 I think Bush is handling himself VERY well... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #59 March 17, 2003 Quote Quote Bush is little more than "the village idiot" he is not handling this affair properly. well I strongly disgree. I have shown evidence that SH has ties to the 9-11 crowd. I hope you sent it to the CIA. They didn't seem to be able to find any. Maybe they don't read the Guardian down in Langley.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #60 March 17, 2003 Quotethat's good, i'm glad you "presented evidence" of ties to iraq and 09/11. on the other hand, evidence does not need to be "presented" on the 12 years, as it is historical fact. me, you, and every american in the US of A are to blame for that one. and france's hands and china's hands are clean......I think not Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #61 March 17, 2003 Not many hands are clean.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #62 March 17, 2003 ot were you offended when I called you Comrad? you never told me if you were...... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #63 March 17, 2003 Quoteot were you offended when I called you Comrad? you never told me if you were...... I am a life member of the Conservative Party.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #64 March 17, 2003 Quote Conservative Party. Which conservative party? Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #65 March 17, 2003 Quoteif you go back in this thread, you'll see i have come up with several ideas. I went back through this thread, I didn't see a single post where you offered up an alternative solution, besides the one where you suggested something about a 35 cent bullet. Quote12 years we had time to be proactive on this dissarming issue, and we let it slide. That was 12 years ago, this is now. What's your point? Quotenow out of the big middle of nowhere we are going to attack iraq. (in obvious retaliation for 09/11) I think what's happened is we now realize that we aren't immune to international terrorism. We know that Saddam has WMD, specifically chemical and biological. These particular WMD pose a significant threat as they do not require a sophisticated delivery system, especially not for a terrorist attack. We feel strongly that if Saddam is left in control of these chemical and biological weapons that he will use them to attack us or our allies. It is our duty to protect both US citizens on US soil as well as our allies. I don't think that this is in retaliation to September 11, 2001, but rather an attempt to make sure that something similar doesn't happen in the near future. Quotelet diplomacy do it's job. Diplomacy didn't do the job 12 years ago and it's not working now. Quoteif we have to send in 20,000 inspector's so be it. And who's going to pay for that? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rgoper 0 #66 March 17, 2003 QuoteAnd who's going to pay for that? well since they would be UN inspectors all of the nations represented would have to pay their share. QuoteThat was 12 years ago, this is now. What's your point? if we've waited 12 years, why can't we now wait 12 months? the UN and every member of it, the USA included "dropped the ball" QuoteDiplomacy didn't do the job 12 years ago and it's not working now. you've said 12 years as if referring to 12 years restropectively. this was supposed to be an immediate dissarmament, not a 12 year long dissarmament. We know that Saddam has WMD, specifically chemical and biological.Quote big deal, so does the USA These particular WMD pose a significant threat as they do not require a sophisticated delivery system, especially not for a terrorist attack.Quote so do ours We feel strongly that if Saddam is left in control of these chemical and biological weapons that he will use them to attack us or our allies.Quote who's to say ol' wyubya isn't a lose cannon? It is our duty to protect both US citizens on US soil as well as our allies.Quote yeah, i can see where attacking iraq will make U.S. world travelers feel much safer. I don't think that this is in retaliation to September 11, 2001, but rather an attempt to make sure that something similar doesn't happen in the near future.Quote your wrong according to the details. the "original intent" was to eradicate al-queda, so we went into afganistan to kill osama bin laden, we did not achieve that objective. now, since we didn't finish up that job wyubya changes course from a 180 to a 360 and now it's about attacking iraq. what does this have to do with our "original plan?" who will we attck next? France, Germany, China, North Korea or maybe even Russia? ol' wyubya would think twice before attacking either one of these countries, because they're no "push overs" you suggested something about a 35 cent bullet.*** i still do. but i have relented to the fact of imminent war. it's sad diplomatic processes were not allowed to culminate in the dissarmament of SH. be watching the headlines, watch more airlines go broke, unemployment figures climb, and look for your own civil liberties to be further infringed upon by our own goverment agencies. all those of you with any type of criminal record, past due parking tickets, past due child support, jaywalkers, hot check writers, brace yourselves. we'll talk to all of you in a year, i just bet ol wyubya won't be quite so popular then. the president is doing nothing more than "saving face" for the events of 09/11, he got caught with his pants down that day, hell, we all did and he wants assurance it won't happen again, this war will provide him no such assurance, but it will raise the stakes for further retaliation from other powers in the world. bets are being taken at the window.--Richard-- "We Will Not Be Shaken By Thugs, And Terroist" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #67 March 17, 2003 Quote Quote Conservative Party. Which conservative party? Ciels- Michele THE Conservative Party. Geez!... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genie 0 #68 March 18, 2003 QuoteQuoteVERIFIED evidence? http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html http://www.observer.co.uk/focus/story/0,6903,591439,00.html I know you will not accept this comrad kallend but it's true Bill, without wanting to be smart, if you consider that to be Verifed Evidence i have a bridge i would like to sell you. Ive read all articles as quoted ( and god knows newspaper articles are *always* 100% accurate!) and in none of them did i see " Yes Sadaam funded and trained the Alquaida terrrorist who flew into the Twin Towers" I saw 'apparently' I saw 'no one said they were Alquaida' and i saw Non Iraqi Arabs... To put it in context, thats kinda like the IRA going to Ian Paisley for training... And none of this came out til after the US stated their intention of wanting to go to war with Iraq. to put it in context I dont doubt that he probably is funding 'non iraqi arabs' but you know theres a LOT of arab terrorist groups and a lot of them are active in the middle east, not in America. Im not saying thats ok then by any means... but if you are claiming verified evidence can we do better than supposition from fairly biased sources ? Genie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #69 March 18, 2003 Quotebig deal, so does the USA but we have not killed millions of our own ppl. SH is a madman plain and simple. Let me ask you one thing? Do you think SH would ever disarm? Do you think him unable to sell WMD to anyone? wake up, Please!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #70 March 18, 2003 Quoteso we're straight, i never made such a remark, or even remotely elluded to such a remark. sadaam's a lying SOB, plain and simple. Hey we agree on something that's a start. Quotein any event, attacking iraq (which we're going to do, no matter who's for/against it) without at least the 9 required votes is a mistake, a lethal mistake sorry I disagree we need no ones aproval to protect ourselves. QuoteBush is little more than "the village idiot" he is not handling this affair properly. His hand was forced by the french who was unwilling to talk about anything.... Quote 12 years, 12 years have gone by...where were we?[ this is unacceptable, yes, which is why we had to go it w/o all of the UN. Such a shame. Quoteand we're going to pay, this is no joke. there won't be a moment's of peace on god's green earth. you should learn from N Korea, containment no longer works. The rules have changed since 9-11 Quoteand i won't boycott anything from France, or germany. my ancestor's fled Germany to the USA in the 1800's for religous freedom. that's your right, you can buy the dipsy chicks newest cd. Just remember it is my right not to as well! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Genie 0 #71 March 18, 2003 QuoteQuotelet diplomacy do it's job it tried and in 12 years nada, time to let the real men handle it. Quotein obvious retaliation for 09/11 Quotebecause they were involved Theres a lot stronger evidence that the Saudi royal family had links to the 9/11 tragedy. The US Government helped them to leave America, and they're not going to war against Saudi are they? The Saudis *personally* handed over money to a 9/11 suspect pre 9/11 - and were given first class airline seats out of the US. Genie (ok i dont know it was first class, but i cant imagine them flying coach :)) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 1,651 #72 March 18, 2003 It's all moot now. We're going in anyway. Let's hope it's short and the Iraqi troops lay down their weapons and don't turn Baghdad into another Stalingrad..... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #73 March 18, 2003 QuoteTheres a lot stronger evidence that the Saudi royal family had links to the 9/11 tragedy. The US Government helped them to leave America, and they're not going to war against Saudi are they? The Saudis *personally* handed over money to a 9/11 suspect pre 9/11 - and were given first class airline seats out of the US. I believe they should be next. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Genie 0 #74 March 18, 2003 QuoteQuoteTheres a lot stronger evidence that the Saudi royal family had links to the 9/11 tragedy. The US Government helped them to leave America, and they're not going to war against Saudi are they? The Saudis *personally* handed over money to a 9/11 suspect pre 9/11 - and were given first class airline seats out of the US. Quote I believe they should be next. and who should America attack after its conquored iraq and saudi? Well the French seem like an obvious target dont they? They didnt want to go to war with iraq, they're obviously terrorist supporters! Where you gonna stop? Genie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 3 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
bodypilot90 0 #69 March 18, 2003 Quotebig deal, so does the USA but we have not killed millions of our own ppl. SH is a madman plain and simple. Let me ask you one thing? Do you think SH would ever disarm? Do you think him unable to sell WMD to anyone? wake up, Please!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #70 March 18, 2003 Quoteso we're straight, i never made such a remark, or even remotely elluded to such a remark. sadaam's a lying SOB, plain and simple. Hey we agree on something that's a start. Quotein any event, attacking iraq (which we're going to do, no matter who's for/against it) without at least the 9 required votes is a mistake, a lethal mistake sorry I disagree we need no ones aproval to protect ourselves. QuoteBush is little more than "the village idiot" he is not handling this affair properly. His hand was forced by the french who was unwilling to talk about anything.... Quote 12 years, 12 years have gone by...where were we?[ this is unacceptable, yes, which is why we had to go it w/o all of the UN. Such a shame. Quoteand we're going to pay, this is no joke. there won't be a moment's of peace on god's green earth. you should learn from N Korea, containment no longer works. The rules have changed since 9-11 Quoteand i won't boycott anything from France, or germany. my ancestor's fled Germany to the USA in the 1800's for religous freedom. that's your right, you can buy the dipsy chicks newest cd. Just remember it is my right not to as well! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genie 0 #71 March 18, 2003 QuoteQuotelet diplomacy do it's job it tried and in 12 years nada, time to let the real men handle it. Quotein obvious retaliation for 09/11 Quotebecause they were involved Theres a lot stronger evidence that the Saudi royal family had links to the 9/11 tragedy. The US Government helped them to leave America, and they're not going to war against Saudi are they? The Saudis *personally* handed over money to a 9/11 suspect pre 9/11 - and were given first class airline seats out of the US. Genie (ok i dont know it was first class, but i cant imagine them flying coach :)) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #72 March 18, 2003 It's all moot now. We're going in anyway. Let's hope it's short and the Iraqi troops lay down their weapons and don't turn Baghdad into another Stalingrad..... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #73 March 18, 2003 QuoteTheres a lot stronger evidence that the Saudi royal family had links to the 9/11 tragedy. The US Government helped them to leave America, and they're not going to war against Saudi are they? The Saudis *personally* handed over money to a 9/11 suspect pre 9/11 - and were given first class airline seats out of the US. I believe they should be next. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Genie 0 #74 March 18, 2003 QuoteQuoteTheres a lot stronger evidence that the Saudi royal family had links to the 9/11 tragedy. The US Government helped them to leave America, and they're not going to war against Saudi are they? The Saudis *personally* handed over money to a 9/11 suspect pre 9/11 - and were given first class airline seats out of the US. Quote I believe they should be next. and who should America attack after its conquored iraq and saudi? Well the French seem like an obvious target dont they? They didnt want to go to war with iraq, they're obviously terrorist supporters! Where you gonna stop? Genie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
