No shit, Sherlock. by rue

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
somehow, no matter what Bush does, democrats are to blame.

What's up with that ?

Er...the Golden Rule?

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 7, 2008 8:44 AM

America loves a winner!

Bush Team Didn't Skew Intel
by Peter Huessy

Posted: 06/05/2008

I have worked in or with every Congress since 1970 and it is now clear that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi continue to preside over the worst Congress in living memory. This is particularly true in the most serious area a legislator must tackle: national security. No intelligence bill has been passed, now for the second straight year. The FISA reform bill, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, continues to be bottled up. And the prospect of a Defense Authorization bill becoming law is also bleak. On the most important duty they are sworn to do -- provide for the common defense -- the Democratic leadership is AWOL.

What they have produced is a new Senate Intelligence Committee report on the nature of the intelligence on Iraqi threats to the US, the nature of the unconventional weapons programs being pursued by Saddam Hussein, and whether this intelligence material justified the Administration’s decision to remove the Iraqi dictator from power.

As the Vice Chairman of the Committee, Senator Bond, and his colleagues Burr, Chambliss and Hatch have noted, the report -- highly politicized as it is -- concludes “Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Adviser regarding a possible Iraq1 nuclear weapons programs were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates”, (p.15); “statements in the major speeches analyzed regarding Iraqi ballistic missiles were generally supported by available intelligence”(p. 57); “intelligence reporting highlights more than a decade of contacts between the Iraqi Government and al-Qa’ida based on shared anti-US goals and Bin laden’s interest in unconventional weapons…” (p. 63); “statements…regarding Iraq’s support for terrorist groups…were substantiated by intelligence information”, (p.71); and “statements that Iraq provided safe haven for …al-Zarqawi and other al-Qa’ida-related terrorists…and regarding Iraq’s contacts with al-Qa’ida…were substantiated by intelligence estimates”, (p.71).

But the report, despite stating the obvious that intelligence conclusions prior to the liberation of Iraq were flawed, spends considerable time denouncing the idea that Saddam Hussein had any connection to either terrorism or terrorist groups, especially al-Qa’ida. The report concludes that Saddam never “considered using terrorist groups to attack the United States.”

According to documents revealed after the initial liberation of Iraq, and compiled by the Institute for Defense Analysis recently, and summarized by Eli Lake in the New York Sun, “In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to ‘form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia.’ At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there. Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.”

Lake then discusses the reports view of Saddam and Al Qaeda:

“The [IDA] report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market…Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' …helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

Lake then points to the conclusions of two experts that agree on the import of the IDA report:

“Long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran." She added, "He really did want to get
anti-American operations going.”

“A former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser, said he felt the report began to vindicate his point of view. ‘This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more,’ he said. ‘Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and
vice versa.’

The IDA report concludes with a question: "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?” And an answer: “Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces…" Although the Senate report continues to assert the common assumption that Saddam’s secular nature made it likely he would not involve himself in “religious” groups such as al-Qa’ida, “The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box."

Mr. Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a Potomac, Maryland national security consulting firm he founded in 1981. During the Reagan administration he worked to secure the deployment of the INF and Peacekeeper missiles, deploy missile defenses and defeat the communists in El Salvador and Nicaragua. He has been a guest lecturer at the Joint Military Intelligence College

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26857

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 7, 2008 1:49 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Huge stockpile? We're talking CHEMICAL weapons here, pal.

Wrong. You've made the exact same mistake O'Reilly made when talking to Scott McClellan. Imagine that... You now seem to think the term WMD applies ONLY to chemical and/or biological weapons, and discount nuclear programs completely. Nuclear weapons programs do indeed require huge infrastructure - huge enough that such facilities can generally be seen quite easily from orbit by even the simplest of spy satellites.

Have you forgotten the "smoking gun that would appear in the form of a mushroom cloud" that Bush referred to, or his false allegations that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger, both of which claims he used to sell his little war?

Once again, when the facts don't skew your way, you decide to simply move the goalposts and claim that what you were talking about then was never what you were talking about.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 7, 2008 1:51 PM

Quote:
Mr. Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis, a Potomac, Maryland national security consulting firm he founded in 1981. During the Reagan administration he worked to secure the deployment of the INF and Peacekeeper missiles...

Sounds like he knows who's buttering his bread. Not a single reason for him to be biased or partisan, huh? ;)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 7, 2008 5:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
somehow, no matter what Bush does, democrats are to blame.

What's up with that ?

Er...the Golden Rule?

Chrisisall

No, repubs, dems doesn't matter

Americans are to blame

They are your chosen representatives, if they go off the reservation all of you own it... Particularly if they are allowed to keep doing it

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 7, 2008 7:32 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Huge stockpile? We're talking CHEMICAL weapons here, pal.

Wrong. You've made the exact same mistake O'Reilly made when talking to Scott McClellan. Imagine that... You now seem to think the term WMD applies ONLY to chemical and/or biological weapons, and discount nuclear programs completely. Nuclear weapons programs do indeed require huge infrastructure - huge enough that such facilities can generally be seen quite easily from orbit by even the simplest of spy satellites.

Have you forgotten the "smoking gun that would appear in the form of a mushroom cloud" that Bush referred to, or his false allegations that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger, both of which claims he used to sell his little war?

Once again, when the facts don't skew your way, you decide to simply move the goalposts and claim that what you were talking about then was never what you were talking about.

Mike

Sure, WMD does include Nukes, but there was never any real threat that Saddam currently HAD any nukes on hand, The issue was Chem/ BIo WMD's, aka " the poor man's nukes '. Iran is much further along than anyone ever dreamed Saddam might have been on nukes. No goal post being moved here, I'm just not engaging in revisionist history, as you seem to be doing.

There was no 'false' assertion that Iraq was TRYING to get yellow cake uranium from Niger, because HE WAS! Iraq got them for the nuclear reactor they built back in '80, which the Israelis destroyed, and it was only logical that they'd try to go back there again. But even if they weren't under way w/ a Manhattan project of their own, there's still the remote but dangerous possibility that a suit case nuke , from the old Soviet Union, could find its way into Saddam's hands. THAT was the very real and legitimate scenario most feared when discussing nukes w/ Iraq.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, June 7, 2008 9:07 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
No, repubs, dems doesn't matter

Americans are to blame

They are your chosen representatives, if they go off the reservation all of you own it... Particularly if they are allowed to keep doing it.

... and that pretty much sums it up. We can blame Bush, or Rove, Or Pelosi, - but it's the people who keep voting the republocrats back into office who bear the ultimate responsibility. Will we ever wake up? When will the partisan cheerleaders finally admit they've been played?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 4:34 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Huge stockpile? We're talking CHEMICAL weapons here, pal. The amount which could wipe out a small country could easily fit in the back of a small UPS truck.

Look pal, I'm tired of you blowing senseless cr*p outta your *ss all of the time on this board. You disrespect yourself and us with your moronic paranioa.

I worked with chemical weapons experts on a project, and I think I have a better idea than you do about what chemical weapons can... and can't... do. The "small country" of your imagination would have to be VERY small indeed... smaller than Los Angeles. Maybe the size of a sports arena, and even then you wouldn't be 100%. Look it up. Do some research before you blather online. Look into the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. If you can't figure it out, I'll help you with the math later.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 4:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
... and that pretty much sums it up. We can blame Bush, or Rove, Or Pelosi, - but it's the people who keep voting the republocrats back into office who bear the ultimate responsibility. Will we ever wake up? When will the partisan cheerleaders finally admit they've been played?

Of course we're being played, ya big boob! Do you think that everyone is stupid? (Oh yeah, that's right... you do. 'Cause nobody on this board is as smart as Sarge! I think we'd all agree to that!

) But you have to look behind the curtain... who's playing the players? 'Cause they ain't playin' their games for no reason. Follow the money, honey, and tell me what you find.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 6:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So 'Rapo, here's the math...

The Aum group managed to kill seven people with 10 liters of Sarin in the enclosed, crowded environment of the Tokyo subway. Given that LA metro area has 12 million people, at THAT ratio you'd need approximately 17 million liters of Sarin, and that's assuming that everyone is packed like sardines in a box. But since LA is a low-density city, you could safely mutliply that requirement by 10, meaning you'd need at least 170 million liters of sarin, which is... a whole helluva lot more than "a small UPS truck" and a whole helluva a lot less than "a small country".

Given your apparent problems with basic math, on everything from the economy to WMD to global warming.... do you need help balancing your checkbook?

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 9:15 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The Aum group managed to kill seven people with 10 liters of Sarin in the enclosed, crowded environment of the Tokyo subway.

Actually, 12 people died, and 5,500 went to hospital, of whom 150 were critically to moderately ill.

Also:

"...many more people might have died if the weapons had functioned as Aum intended. Three of the bags brought onto the trains by the operatives were not punctured, meaning that not
all of the sarin gas was released. In addition, according to chemical weapons experts, the sarin
was impure and the system used to disseminate it was inferior."

"According to testimony from those arrested after the attack, preparations were rushed, due to an impending police raid. If group members had not been denied their request for more time to prepare the sarin, it might have been purer and resulted in far more than 12 deaths."

See pages 17 - 24 here. http://www.homelandsecurity.org/hsireports/reasons_for_terrorist_succe
ss_failure.pdf

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 9:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But even if they weren't under way w/ a Manhattan project of their own, there's still the remote but dangerous possibility that a suit case nuke , from the old Soviet Union, could find its way into Saddam's hands. THAT was the very real and legitimate scenario most feared when discussing nukes w/ Iraq.

[Sean Connery voice]
YOU DOLT![/Sean Connery voice]
ANYONE can be able to do that- why would SADDAM be more likely than anyone else of making it happen???
You are SO led by the nose...I wish a thirty year older you could back in time to slap yourself for all the nonsense that comes off your keyboard here.
[Sarek voice]Your logic is in question, where you politics are concerned.[/Sarek voice]

u-no-grokisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 9:22 AM

FLETCH2

Humm, no weapon, not even a nuke, is going to give you a 100% casualty rate in a big city. In fact from a purely strategic POV that's not even desirable, look at Katrina or the really big SF quakes it's better to cause devastation and leave your enemy with the logistics problems of mass none fatal casualties, breakdown in social order and displaced people.

Imagine your UPS truck in Times Square, followed less than an hour later by a follow on attack in a couple of subway choke points. Casualty figures would be low, but forcing those commuters above ground would gridlock the city, adding to the problems for first responders.

WMD's have been from their inception a terror weapon, not a weapon that deals necessarily a big body count. I don't think it's helpful to assume they are something they are not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 10:47 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Of course we're being played, ya big boob! Do you think that everyone is stupid? (Oh yeah, that's right... you do. 'Cause nobody on this board is as smart as Sarge! I think we'd all agree to that! )

I was wondering when you'd see the light.

Seriously though, why DO we keep falling for the same old crap? I see way too many intelligent people cynically, complacently, accepting the status quo. It looks to me like people would rather win than be right. Or left, as the case may be.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Of course we're being played, ya big boob! Do you think that everyone is stupid? (Oh yeah, that's right... you do. 'Cause nobody on this board is as smart as Sarge! I think we'd all agree to that! )

I was wondering when you'd see the light.

Seriously though, why DO we keep falling for the same old crap? I see way too many intelligent people cynically, complacently, accepting the status quo. It looks to me like people would rather win than be right. Or left, as the case may be.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

But is the win really a win, or just the making of a new set of enemies in a war without end.

The root causes of the conflict must be addressed, or really it is all for nothing, until the day that will come.

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 12:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

The root causes of the conflict must be addressed, or really it is all for nothing

In a world without conflict, greed would not exist.
Conflict is therefore inevitable as it stands now.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 1:06 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Huge stockpile? We're talking CHEMICAL weapons here, pal. The amount which could wipe out a small country could easily fit in the back of a small UPS truck.
Look pal, I'm tired of you blowing senseless cr*p outta your *ss all of the time on this board. You disrespect yourself and us with your moronic paranioa.

I worked with chemical weapons experts on a project, and I think I have a better idea than you do about what chemical weapons can... and can't... do. The "small country" of your imagination would have to be VERY small indeed... smaller than Los Angeles. Maybe the size of a sports arena, and even then you wouldn't be 100%. Look it up. Do some research before you blather online. Look into the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. If you can't figure it out, I'll help you with the math later.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

I'm not backing down in my views just because some jack ass claims this or that. I'm unimpressed. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't take a ware house of chemicals to do great damage. THAT was the fucking point, and if you're going to be a dick about it and claim " I worked w/ chemicals " , bfd! That don't change one god damn thing. Get over yourself.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 1:10 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
But even if they weren't under way w/ a Manhattan project of their own, there's still the remote but dangerous possibility that a suit case nuke , from the old Soviet Union, could find its way into Saddam's hands. THAT was the very real and legitimate scenario most feared when discussing nukes w/ Iraq.

[Sean Connery voice]
YOU DOLT![/Sean Connery voice]
ANYONE can be able to do that- why would SADDAM be more likely than anyone else of making it happen???
You are SO led by the nose...I wish a thirty year older you could back in time to slap yourself for all the nonsense that comes off your keyboard here.
[Sarek voice]Your logic is in question, where you politics are concerned.[/Sarek voice]

u-no-grokisall

Only Saddam's USED them before, on his own people, pin head. It's being sensible, not being led around by my nose. A 30 yr older me would slap me for not sounding the alarm more, but he'd know that it's useless w/ the lot of you. Everything's fine in Happy Dreamy land, right ?

Mindless Myrmidons.

"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 1:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Only Saddam's USED them before, on his own people, pin head.

I was referring to your NUKE IDEA, Braniac!

Quote:
It's being sensible, not being led around by my nose.

You might need to look up the meaning of that word, Einstein...

Quote:
A 30 yr older me would slap me for not sounding the alarm more, but he'd know that it's useless w/ the lot of you.

Tell me you've been drinking. Just tell me.

Quote:
Everything's fine in Happy Dreamy land, right ?

If you say so. I'm here on this planet.

"Your brain defies any known scientific laws in its infinite capacity to deteriorate."

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 1:47 PM

America loves a winner!

Of course, y'all are all happy and shiny, until the first nuke goes off. THEN the cries of " WHO WAS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL TO LET THIS HAPPEN?? " , and all manner of finger pointing stats from the Left. What makes this claim so predictable is that it's EXACTLY the sort of about face the Left has already done, over WMDs. Before the war, the Left was all " Saddam's bad, mmmmkay? We can't let him have his WMD programs, mmmkay"? 'Cause WMDs are bad. Mmmkay? "

Flipfloppersisall.

( Why are we still talkin' about this ? )

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm not backing down in my views just because some jack ass claims this or that. I'm unimpressed. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't take a ware house of chemicals to do great damage. THAT was the fucking point, and if you're going to be a dick about it and claim " I worked w/ chemicals " , bfd! That don't change one god damn thing.

You're not backing down from your views no matter that they're shown over and over as wrong? It's not that I worked on a project related to chemical weapons that you should be responding to, it's the post AFTER that... yanno, the one demonstrating that you would need something like 170 million liters of Sarin to "wipe out" LA... that deserves thought.

It's one thing to have uniformed views, 'Rapo. Nobody can be held accountable for their views BEFORE they've been exposed to facts. But to deliberately cling to paranoid fantasy even after you've been given a chance to look at cold facts... well, THAT says a lot about you.

Quote:
Actually, 12 people died, and 5,500 went to hospital, of whom 150 were critically to moderately ill. "...many more people might have died if the weapons had functioned as Aum intended. Three of the bags brought onto the trains by the operatives were not punctured, meaning that not all of the sarin gas was released. In addition, according to chemical weapons experts, the sarin was impure and the system used to disseminate it was inferior."

Mmm, okay, so you'd need 80 million liters of Sarin to wipe out LA. Something like 20,000 tons. Still not "a small UPS truck" and still not a "small country". So your point is....?

In order to do much damage, you'd need a tons of chemical weapons. Vast amounts. Huge stockpiles. So while a chemical weapons attack would cause a great deal of panic it would frankly not cause much injury. The experts that I spoke with said it would be far more likely... well, that's another story, and I don't want to be detained in Gitmo so you'll have to fill that in for yourselves. But it has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Before the war, the Left was all " Saddam's bad, mmmmkay? We can't let him have his WMD programs, mmmkay"? 'Cause WMDs are bad. Mmmkay? "

Flipfloppersisall.

What flippin' bleedin' left are YOU on about, boyo? This part-time lefty was convinced WMD was a scam as soon as it came up. As were many others. So

that, man. Maybe psuedo Dems & Reps bought that s**t, but not me & mine.

No sheep hereisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:26 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
I'm not backing down in my views just because some jack ass claims this or that. I'm unimpressed. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't take a ware house of chemicals to do great damage. THAT was the fucking point, and if you're going to be a dick about it and claim " I worked w/ chemicals " , bfd! That don't change one god damn thing.
You're not backing down from your views no matter that they're shown over and over as wrong? It's not that I worked on a project related to chemical weapons that you should be responding to, it's the post AFTER that... yanno, the one demonstrating that you would need something like 170 million liters of Sarin to "wipe out" LA... that deserves thought.

It's one thing to have uniformed views, 'Rapo. Nobody can be held accountable for their views BEFORE they've been exposed to facts. But to deliberately cling to paranoid fantasy even after you've been given a chance to look at cold facts... well, THAT says a lot about you.

--------------------------------.

Says more about that you that you'd cherry pick which facts you want to accept and discard the rest, purely to sooth your political paradigm.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:27 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Before the war, the Left was all " Saddam's bad, mmmmkay? We can't let him have his WMD programs, mmmkay"? 'Cause WMDs are bad. Mmmkay? "

Flipfloppersisall.

What flippin' bleedin' left are YOU on about, boyo? This part-time lefty was convinced WMD was a scam as soon as it came up. As were many others. So that, man. Maybe psuedo Dems & Reps bought that s**t, but not me & mine.

No sheep hereisall

I meant Ted Kennedy, Sandy Berger , et al doing the flip flop, brainiac

YOU were convinced it was a scam because you WANTED it to be a scam, for purely political purposes. Sucks to be you, huh?

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 2:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Says more about that you that you'd cherry pick which facts you want to accept and discard the rest, purely to sooth your political paradigm.

What is this? Nyah nyah nyah? Is THAt what youre reduced to?

Say, tell me again about how a small UPS truck filled with chemical weapons could destroy a small country, and tell me how that is at all factual!

And you accuse ME of twisting facts to fit my paradigm? HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 3:00 PM

America loves a winner!

In just one post, you've reassessed your EXPERT opinion that 170 million litres , no , wait...that's 80 million litres of Sarin would be needed to wipe out LA.

But of course, no one said EVERY LIVING PERSON has to die for a country , or a city to be decimated, right?

Let's just make it clear, that no one , Dems or GOP, wanted Saddam to do THIS to any other people of the world, including his own.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

YOU were convinced it was a scam because you WANTED it to be a scam, for purely political purposes.

Look, get this into one of the three brain cells you use to comprehend & discuss this subject with: I don't care WHO does the right thing, I'm just as willing to cheer on someone I don't like (which, at this point is, well, pretty much all the politicos) if they're doing it, but I DO demand they do it. Your man Bush screwed the pooch on this one, and you ain't ballsy enuff to admit it- that's that FACT, JACK.

You're not just being a dousche here, but a DISPOSABLE one.

Why don't you go be a pretzel-maker, you're so good at twisting things...

Dissing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 3:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
In just one post, you've reassessed your EXPERT opinion that 170 million litres , no , wait...that's 80 million litres of Sarin would be needed to wipe out LA.

But of course, no one said EVERY LIVING PERSON has to die for a country , or a city to be decimated, right?

Let's just make it clear, that no one , Dems or GOP, wanted Saddam to do THIS to any other people of the world, including his own.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Hey, Winston Churchill ordered the use of gas on Kurds

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/apr/19/iraq.arts

If Saddam was evil ( yes I agree he was ) then that would also make Churchill an evil bastard as well right ?

Shall we inspect / take away Britains WMDs

after all they have a history of using gas on civilian populations as well.

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 4:30 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Mmm, okay, so you'd need 80 million liters of Sarin to wipe out LA. Something like 20,000 tons. Still not "a small UPS truck" and still not a "small country". So your point is....?

I never said anything about "UPS truck" or "small country". Just noting that Sarin - something pretty low on the frightfulness scale - effectively used (which the Japanese attacks weren't) could still cause mass casualties.

Quote:
In order to do much damage, you'd need a tons of chemical weapons. Vast amounts. Huge stockpiles. So while a chemical weapons attack would cause a great deal of panic it would frankly not cause much injury. The experts that I spoke with said it would be far more likely... well, that's another story, and I don't want to be detained in Gitmo so you'll have to fill that in for yourselves. But it has nothing to do with chemical weapons.

A chemical weapons attack using vehicle-transportable amounts (a semi could carry 30 tons easy) could easily kill as many as the 9/11 attacks. Something like VX, much more effective than Sarin, would easily do the job. Biological agents, which I assume you're coyly hinting at, could do much more damage.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 4:41 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

BTW, if you look at the conclusions in the Committee report about the Administration's comments on biological and chemical weapons you see:

"Conclusion 2: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well as additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of biological agent, weapons, production capability, and use of mobile biological laboratories were substantiated by intelligence information"

"Conclusion 3: Statements in the major speeches analyzed, as well (as) additional statements, regarding Iraq's possession of chemical weapons were substantiated by intelligence information"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 4:41 PM

Churchill, hell - WE in the US have a history of it as well. Chemical, biological, nuclear - we're an equal-opportunity offender!

Biological - As in, "Gee, Native Americans, we're so sorry we stole your land. Won't you accept this blanket loaded with smallpox as our apology?" Sure, that's ancient history, but what about...

Chemical - Agent Orange, anybody? Anyone? Oh yeah... aren't that many of those guys still alive out there. And yes, we - as in OUR government - used that poison on our own troops in Viet Nam. And to make matters worse, we - as in OUR government - told those poor bastards that it was harmless, when WE - as in OUR government - knew full well that that was utter and complete bullshit.

But I'm sure to guys like 'Rap, that's all "ancient history", too. What a difference 10 years makes in your frame of reference...

And without getting into a long, drawn-out argument over the benefits and drawbacks of nuking Japan, it would do us well to remember one fact: In the history of the world, there has been only ONE nation to ever use nuclear weapons against another.

'Rap: you maintain that it only takes a small truck full of chemical weapons to do massive damage. True enough, but somehow, somewhere, you have to manufacture the things that go into that truck. THAT takes logistics and manufacturing capability on a somewhat larger scale than you're talking about.

And you've contradicted yourself yet again by claiming that, on the one hand, the Dems didn't want to do anything, then on the other hand claiming that they were yelling just as loudly as the Thuglicans about how we had to do something. I know you guys love the term "flip-flop", but you really better watch it. Your guy McCain has flip-flopped so goddam much that he's even voted against legislation that he authored!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 4:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

If Saddam was evil ( yes I agree he was ) then that would also make Churchill an evil bastard as well right ?

Well duh, NO, because our Presidents & Prime Ministers & things can do no wrong, OBVIOUSLY....(unless they'z Democratz)

AUisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 5:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Churchill, hell - WE in the US have a history of it as well. Chemical, biological, nuclear - we're an equal-opportunity offender!

Biological - As in, "Gee, Native Americans, we're so sorry we stole your land. Won't you accept this blanket loaded with smallpox as our apology?" Sure, that's ancient history, but what about...

Chemical - Agent Orange, anybody? Anyone? Oh yeah... aren't that many of those guys still alive out there. And yes, we - as in OUR government - used that poison on our own troops in Viet Nam. And to make matters worse, we - as in OUR government - told those poor bastards that it was harmless, when WE - as in OUR government - knew full well that that was utter and complete bullshit.

But I'm sure to guys like 'Rap, that's all "ancient history", too. What a difference 10 years makes in your frame of reference...

And without getting into a long, drawn-out argument over the benefits and drawbacks of nuking Japan, it would do us well to remember one fact: In the history of the world, there has been only ONE nation to ever use nuclear weapons against another.

'Rap: you maintain that it only takes a small truck full of chemical weapons to do massive damage. True enough, but somehow, somewhere, you have to manufacture the things that go into that truck. THAT takes logistics and manufacturing capability on a somewhat larger scale than you're talking about.

And you've contradicted yourself yet again by claiming that, on the one hand, the Dems didn't want to do anything, then on the other hand claiming that they were yelling just as loudly as the Thuglicans about how we had to do something. I know you guys love the term "flip-flop", but you really better watch it. Your guy McCain has flip-flopped so goddam much that he's even voted against legislation that he authored!

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

I was saving the US occupation of Puerto Rico for a rebuttal, but hey

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 6:58 PM

Hey folks, we're forgetting about 'necessary evils' here, as The Operative would say, we don't kill women & children....unless we HAVE to....

Bush & Cheney are just trying to make a better world. As were all of the great leaders of this planet.

I'm so sick of the collateral damage mentalityisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 7:34 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
A chemical weapons attack using vehicle-transportable amounts (a semi could carry 30 tons easy) could easily kill as many as the 9/11 attacks.

Prolly. But it's not a small country. I realize that's not YOUR point, but you came to Rapo's defense so I assume you were defending his point.

Quote:
Biological agents, which I assume you're coyly hinting at, could do much more damage.

Nah, I wasn't hinting at bioweapons and neither were they 'cause they were chem weapons guys. But if you want to think about effectiveness, bioweapons are potentially better because they reproduce themselves, the little buggers.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, June 8, 2008 11:36 PM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hey folks, we're forgetting about 'necessary evils' here, as The Operative would say, we don't kill women & children....unless we HAVE to....

Bush & Cheney are just trying to make a better world. As were all of the great leaders of this planet.

I'm so sick of the collateral damage mentalityisall

Odd that you're not sick of the cause of all this mayhem, the Islamo fascists, and instead are all outraged at our response.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 1:23 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I realize that's not YOUR point, but you came to Rapo's defense so I assume you were defending his point.

Nah. I just thought you were understating the danger of chemical weapons as much or more as Auraptor was overstating them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 1:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hey folks, we're forgetting about 'necessary evils' here, as The Operative would say, we don't kill women & children....unless we HAVE to....

Bush & Cheney are just trying to make a better world. As were all of the great leaders of this planet.

I'm so sick of the collateral damage mentalityisall

Odd that you're not sick of the cause of all this mayhem, the Islamo fascists, and instead are all outraged at our response.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Read some history, since the end of WW1 the Western powers have fumbled and manipulated things to the point they are the root cause of the situation.

The British created Iraq, and pitted the ethnic groups against each other to maintain control,

If it wasnt for Eisenhower Iran would be a democracy and the Islamic revolution wouldn't have happened.

Israel the biggest mistake the UN even made

Lebanon, Syria, Egypt...... a long list of greed and impulse driven errors

" But we never answered the question "Why?" Why are we as a people worth saving? We still commit murder because of greed and spite, jealousy, and we still visit all of our sins upon our children. We refuse to accept the responsibility for anything that we've done, We decided to play God, create life. And when that life turned against us, we comforted ourselves in the knowledge that it really wasn't our fault, not really. You cannot play God then wash your hands of the things that you've created. Sooner or later, the day comes when you can't hide from the things that you've done anymore "

Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 3:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Odd that you're not sick of the cause of all this mayhem, the Islamo fascists

Hitler was into Islam?? And Attila the Hun?? And Pol Pot? Wow, I was wholly unaware of the breadth of the Islamo-fascist influence...

AU, at least Dr. Frankenstein acknowledged his creation, we act like we had nothing to do with ours.

You put the bi in bipedisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 3:56 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Huge stockpile? We're talking CHEMICAL weapons here, pal. The amount which could wipe out a small country could easily fit in the back of a small UPS truck. You're stuck w/ the mental image of "stockpiled warehouses ", as seen in Raiders of the Lost Ark , with crates among endless rows of crates. Sorry, the real world ain't like that.

Actually it is. Sure people talk about a single drop of this or that being enough to kill a thousand people, but if you were to drop a single drop in amongst a thousand people, you'd probably find no one actually suffered any ill effects. Sure in theory the amount that could fit in a UPS truck could kill everyone in a small country, but in reality, due to dispersion and other factors, the UPS truck would probably carry enough to kill a large village or town, best case scenario (or worst, depending on your view point).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 4:19 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Hey, Winston Churchill ordered the use of gas on Kurds

Actually, there's no evidence I know of that gas was used during the Kurdish uprising, just that it was suggested.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 6:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Bush & Cheney are just trying to make a better world. As were all of the great leaders of this planet.-Chrisisall

Odd that you're not sick of the cause of all this mayhem, the Islamo fascists, and instead are all outraged at our response.-Rapo

Rapo, do you really think the cause of all of this begins and ends in Islam? There are millions of Muslims out there who have never picked up a gun, and never will. In addition, there are a LOT of people out there who aren't Muslims who hate the USA with a passion that equals a jihadism's. (Say, did I tell you that Chinese stood up and cheered when the towers fell? If I did, it bears repeating.)

I agree with you that we are surrounded by enemies. But we're not going to win only by killing... all that does is create more enemies. The way to win is to turn enemies into friends or at least neutrals, and the way to do THAT is to win the war of ideas.

But IF we're going to win the war of ideas we have to bring to the table something other than "Now we install your government and by the way give us your land/ oil/ copper/ tantalum/ shipping lanes/ -fill in the blank-" which has pretty much been our MO since 1776 when we started our own little pogrom of ethnic-cleansing, WWII excluded. Doesn't it strike you as notable that the two nations who became reasonable allies after we devastated them in war (Germany, Japan) were the two nations that we chose to rebuild, and that every nation after that suffered from our intervention and became an enemy? Don't you think there is an important historic lesson to be learned from a couple of centuries of experience? I know it's scary to let go of the paradigm of empire: We see, we need, we take... which (in the minds of many) translates to a better life for us. People don't want to give up that feeling of superiority because what would happen to our lifestyle? But that is not an idea that we can bring to the table and expect others people to swallow willingly. Nor is it necessary for our well-being.

You have to realize that (1) We Americans do NOT have the greatest lifestyle in the world. Our paradigm has yielded for us a relentless sense of personal and national insecurity and (2) Only an unimaginably few (less than 10,000 people in the entire world) actually benefit from constant churning of war.

So, to be specific: Islam is a religion with a sense of mission. Sacrifice is lauded. And it is based primarily is peasant cultures where it forms the backbone of social organization. In addition, many Muslims living in the ME feel imperiled by the West, and with good reason since we've installed leaders in just about every nation there. You cannot come to the table with the idea that (1) You'll kill all jihadists or that (2) You'll corrupt them with our Western ways of sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, because both will generate a tremendous backlash.

I have several concepts to bring to the table BUT they can only be presented by a nation that is internally uncorrupted and also disinterested in ME oil, and I'm afraid that excludes us at the present time. Most people in the ME know that their leaders are corrupt and are siphoning off the greater part of wealth. It's an endemic problem that has nothing to do with the USA (although we take advantage of it in SA, Kuwait, Iraq, UAE etc.) because even Iran has that problem. What people might respond to is a call for - not democracy but - transparency. It's part of their religion to have virtuous leaders, and right now people feel that they have to choose between corrupt anti-American leaders or corrupt American poodles.

That's just the beginning of my idea, but I think you can see where that's going. But the only way we can pull this off is if we wash our hands.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 6:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Nah. I just thought you were understating the danger of chemical weapons as much or more as Auraptor was overstating them.

It's actually pretty difficult to get chemical weapons to work. They're mostly fairly heavy liquids, and getting them to disperse effectively is quite a trick. So again, not gonna say too much on the topic. Just FYI.

---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 6:54 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

We Americans do NOT have the greatest lifestyle in the world. Our paradigm has yielded for us a relentless sense of personal and national insecurity

Signy, there's NO WAY that peeps like AU will cop to insecurities of any kind- the very nature of their defensive posture on the subject prevents it. From recognizing it even.

Wait for it.
The tidal wave of "Maybe YOU'RE insecure, not ME, my government is making sure we're all okay, blah blah blah..."

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 8:24 AM

Quote:

I agree with you that we are surrounded by enemies. But we're not going to win only by killing... all that does is create more enemies. The way to win is to turn enemies into friends or at least neutrals, and the way to do THAT is to win the war of ideas.

Siggy: What you have to remember is that when you're talking to folk like 'Rappy, you're talking to someone who ACTUALLY BELIEVES what Reagan said when he claimed "we don't negotiate with terrorists." This country has a long history of doing exactly that - NEGOTIATING with terrorists. One man's terrorist is another's Contra, or Sandinista, or Freedom Fighter, or Mujuhadin, or Tamil Tiger, or East Ulster Para, or...

You get the idea. We DO negotiate, with terrorists or anyone else, if it will save us money and/or lives. We always have, and we're doing it now.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 9:11 AM

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Odd that you're not sick of the cause of all this mayhem, the Islamo fascists
Hitler was into Islam?? And Attila the Hun?? And Pol Pot? Wow, I was wholly unaware of the breadth of the Islamo-fascist influence...

AU, at least Dr. Frankenstein acknowledged his creation, we act like we had nothing to do with ours.

You put the bi in bipedisall

Now you're sounding ridiculous again. Slavery is a sin of the past, it's not OUR sin. Under no circumstance what so ever should WE , today, be forced to bare the brunt of events which occurred decades or 100's of years ago. Folks seem to forget they have but 1 life in which to conduct their affairs w/ others on this planet. How you do that is up to you, not your forefathers.

We can agree that wrongs were committed in the past, but then to say " Ok, that means you're allowed to slaughter 100's of folks today, as pay back ", that lacks any sort of logic or reason.

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 9:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

Now you're sounding ridiculous again. Slavery is a sin of the past, it's not OUR sin.

WHAT? Who's talkin' about SLAVERY??? I'm talking about the U.S.-haters we've created in just MY lifetime!!! Places we effed with, put leaders of our choice into, fascist regimes we've backed in favour of democracies...WE MADE SADDAM, understand that, Socrates??? Go ahead, engage 20 or 30 more brain cells for this discussion, K?

Quote:
logic or reason

Maybe they're in your other pants....

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 9:50 AM

America loves a winner!

We didn't make Saddam. That guy made himself. And the discussion was on about how ENGLAND had screwed up Iraq, 80 yrs ago, and some how folks are attributing that to somehow US reaping what we sow, which is absurd, on any level. I only brought up slavery to point out the absurdity of such arguments about how WE screwed things up. Not so. Those screwing w/ us NOW are doing so on their own volition, not our " meddling ".

It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, June 9, 2008 10:06 AM