can't believe my eyes saddam- agrees to disarm

[smartt]

He's like a lot of you, all talk and no action. How the heck do you even know when he has destroyed 'all' of the weapons as promised?? It's funny how quickly the world forgets, or maybe 'hippie-communism' is coming back in style?? I've seen bumper stickers that lead me to believe this. Next thing you know we are going to hold forum conversations about how Hitler was really a good man at heart. (Must be all the Old Navy T-shirts with flowers on them, or something to that affect.)

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
The US will invade anyway.

The US will invade no matter what!

ONly if Iraq does not disarm or show proof that it has disarmed. Neither has happened so far.

You know that i do agree with you, but i still do believe that the deciscion has to be a UN decicion! a world against it will not do you much good...

And the UN is choosing to look the other way.

Read up on the UN, the UN consists ot many countries, they didn't jump when the US said JUMP... though luck buddy boy, the US does NOT rule the world yet...

AFter 12 years, no one in the UN has jumped anywhere. The only reason inspectors are back in Iraq is because of the threat of war. IF the UN fails to act to clean up this problem, we will.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The US will not take YES for an answer from Saddam.
Will take NO for an answer from North Korea though.
At least Bush is sticking to battles he can win. That's why he isn't talking about the economy much.
This president is a disaster. I hope Gore changes his mind and runs. Come 2004, people are going to be wishing they were back in Clinton-Gore times. It's Gore's for the taking if he's willing to take the heat from the GOP slander machine.

OMG, under Gore, we would be even worse. There would have been NO military action after 9/11. Our country would have a much bigger threat of a terrorist attack. All of the problems we are having today are a result of Clinton. 2000, the last year in Clinton's term, was a down year in the stock market and its economic policies that have caused the weakness of our economy now. The economy was booming under Clinton because of Regan and Bush's policies, which Clinton pretty much claiming credit for. 9/11, worries over more attacks, and worries over Iraq have accellerated the decline of the economy. All three of those could of been averted. Clinton however, when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq (95-96?) did nothing to make sure they went back in, he allowed Iraq to do whatever it wanted because no one was watching them. Under Clinton, our military operation grew 5x while he was cutting back its size. He allowed terrorist groups to grow in size and power. He did nothing about the USS Cole when there were know ties with the bombing to Al-Queda and Osama. He did nothing when Al-Queda blew up our embassy (kenya i think). He knew Al-Queda and Osama were a growing threat and did NOTHING! Bush has had to deal with the mess Clinton has left our country in.

What did Bush do about USS Cole prior to 9/11? Oh wait, same thing Republicans do all the time. Blame Clinton.
In fact Bush did nothing about terrorism., result being 9/11. It was on his watch. It wasn't the day after the inaguration it was 9 months later.
Why did Bush not go after Al-Qaeda from day 1? Was he not aware of USS Cole, because it hapenned a couple months prior to him taking office? Bush blew it, that's all I got to say.
Clinton did 10x more about terrorism than Bush did prior to 9/11. He went after bin Laden. He didn't get him, but that was a priority. It wasn't even on Dubya's radar.
Reagan and Bush have nothing to do with the Clinton economy. If it wasn't for the burden of Reagan and Bush debts, our economy would have grown even faster.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: smartt
He's like a lot of you, all talk and no action. How the heck do you even know when he has destroyed 'all' of the weapons as promised?? It's funny how quickly the world forgets, or maybe 'hippie-communism' is coming back in style?? I've seen bumper stickers that lead me to believe this. Next thing you know we are going to hold forum conversations about how Hitler was really a good man at heart. (Must be all the Old Navy T-shirts with flowers on them, or something to that affect.)

I dont understand it either

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The US will not take YES for an answer from Saddam.
Will take NO for an answer from North Korea though.
At least Bush is sticking to battles he can win. That's why he isn't talking about the economy much.
This president is a disaster. I hope Gore changes his mind and runs. Come 2004, people are going to be wishing they were back in Clinton-Gore times. It's Gore's for the taking if he's willing to take the heat from the GOP slander machine.

OMG, under Gore, we would be even worse. There would have been NO military action after 9/11. Our country would have a much bigger threat of a terrorist attack. All of the problems we are having today are a result of Clinton. 2000, the last year in Clinton's term, was a down year in the stock market and its economic policies that have caused the weakness of our economy now. The economy was booming under Clinton because of Regan and Bush's policies, which Clinton pretty much claiming credit for. 9/11, worries over more attacks, and worries over Iraq have accellerated the decline of the economy. All three of those could of been averted. Clinton however, when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq (95-96?) did nothing to make sure they went back in, he allowed Iraq to do whatever it wanted because no one was watching them. Under Clinton, our military operation grew 5x while he was cutting back its size. He allowed terrorist groups to grow in size and power. He did nothing about the USS Cole when there were know ties with the bombing to Al-Queda and Osama. He did nothing when Al-Queda blew up our embassy (kenya i think). He knew Al-Queda and Osama were a growing threat and did NOTHING! Bush has had to deal with the mess Clinton has left our country in.

Al-Queada members were trained during the last bush period... would you please stop being an ignorant idiiot and please inform yourself from moe than one side?

Irak HATES Talibans, GET IT?????????????????? they HATE Talibans, they HATE OBL? they had NOTHING TO DO WITH 11/9 GET IT?

Irak has been involbed in paying money to families of terrorist attacks, and families wher the supporter did NOT die from terrorist attacks. so has Syria (oh, but why attack syria, they just kill 1200 people a day compared to iraq's 20 people a day...

Idiots, that do not know sh!t, are everywhere...

Did yourself a hole in canada, die there, then you can blame the canadiens for not rescuing you... IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Dr Smooth
The US will invade anyway.

The US will invade no matter what!

ONly if Iraq does not disarm or show proof that it has disarmed. Neither has happened so far.

You know that i do agree with you, but i still do believe that the deciscion has to be a UN decicion! a world against it will not do you much good...

And the UN is choosing to look the other way.

Read up on the UN, the UN consists ot many countries, they didn't jump when the US said JUMP... though luck buddy boy, the US does NOT rule the world yet...

AFter 12 years, no one in the UN has jumped anywhere. The only reason inspectors are back in Iraq is because of the threat of war. IF the UN fails to act to clean up this problem, we will.

Blah, blah, blah... yeah, right... NO fvcking matter what, there will be a war... because a puberty boy wants war as bad as he should want pussy... idiotic moronick asshole of a president... he is braindead, you have to agree on that one...

 

[compudog]

Originally posted by: flavio
But Bush doesn't want him to disarm.

Exactly..

 

[smartt]

Just to make sure nobody misunderstands, I didn't vote for George Jr., but I would back any military action against a radical, communistic, genocidal maniac like Sadaam. I don't give a crap if he stole some little kids ice-cream. The world will be a better place without him. You can go ahead and add the other countries' leaders like China, North Korea, and even Cuba (remember them?) to that list. Power to the People!!!

 

[smartt]

Try spelling Iraq correctly, then talk about brains... kanuck.

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The US will not take YES for an answer from Saddam.
Will take NO for an answer from North Korea though.
At least Bush is sticking to battles he can win. That's why he isn't talking about the economy much.
This president is a disaster. I hope Gore changes his mind and runs. Come 2004, people are going to be wishing they were back in Clinton-Gore times. It's Gore's for the taking if he's willing to take the heat from the GOP slander machine.

OMG, under Gore, we would be even worse. There would have been NO military action after 9/11. Our country would have a much bigger threat of a terrorist attack. All of the problems we are having today are a result of Clinton. 2000, the last year in Clinton's term, was a down year in the stock market and its economic policies that have caused the weakness of our economy now. The economy was booming under Clinton because of Regan and Bush's policies, which Clinton pretty much claiming credit for. 9/11, worries over more attacks, and worries over Iraq have accellerated the decline of the economy. All three of those could of been averted. Clinton however, when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq (95-96?) did nothing to make sure they went back in, he allowed Iraq to do whatever it wanted because no one was watching them. Under Clinton, our military operation grew 5x while he was cutting back its size. He allowed terrorist groups to grow in size and power. He did nothing about the USS Cole when there were know ties with the bombing to Al-Queda and Osama. He did nothing when Al-Queda blew up our embassy (kenya i think). He knew Al-Queda and Osama were a growing threat and did NOTHING! Bush has had to deal with the mess Clinton has left our country in.

Al-Queada members were trained during the last bush period... would you please stop being an ignorant idiiot and please inform yourself from moe than one side?

Irak HATES Talibans, GET IT?????????????????? they HATE Talibans, they HATE OBL? they had NOTHING TO DO WITH 11/9 GET IT?

Irak has been involbed in paying money to families of terrorist attacks, and families wher the supporter did NOT die from terrorist attacks. so has Syria (oh, but why attack syria, they just kill 1200 people a day compared to iraq's 20 people a day...

Idiots, that do not know sh!t, are everywhere...

Did yourself a hole in canada, die there, then you can blame the canadiens for not rescuing you... IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!

When did I ever mention Iraq being related to 9/11? Re-read what I wrote dumb-a$$!!!!!!!! (what the hell is 11/9?)

The issue right now is Iraq. We cant just drop everything right now with Iraq and attack Syria, same with NK. Syria is probably right behind NK in list of countries we will deal with after Iraq. Iran is not too far off either.

 

[smartt]

Bush is a monkey hand-puppet... okay what's your point? Sadaam is a sadistic, blood-thirsty mongrel... Who would you kill given a chance the retarded kid on the playgrouund or the serial killer?

 

[Jmman]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The US will not take YES for an answer from Saddam.
Will take NO for an answer from North Korea though.
At least Bush is sticking to battles he can win. That's why he isn't talking about the economy much.
This president is a disaster. I hope Gore changes his mind and runs. Come 2004, people are going to be wishing they were back in Clinton-Gore times. It's Gore's for the taking if he's willing to take the heat from the GOP slander machine.

OMG, under Gore, we would be even worse. There would have been NO military action after 9/11. Our country would have a much bigger threat of a terrorist attack. All of the problems we are having today are a result of Clinton. 2000, the last year in Clinton's term, was a down year in the stock market and its economic policies that have caused the weakness of our economy now. The economy was booming under Clinton because of Regan and Bush's policies, which Clinton pretty much claiming credit for. 9/11, worries over more attacks, and worries over Iraq have accellerated the decline of the economy. All three of those could of been averted. Clinton however, when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq (95-96?) did nothing to make sure they went back in, he allowed Iraq to do whatever it wanted because no one was watching them. Under Clinton, our military operation grew 5x while he was cutting back its size. He allowed terrorist groups to grow in size and power. He did nothing about the USS Cole when there were know ties with the bombing to Al-Queda and Osama. He did nothing when Al-Queda blew up our embassy (kenya i think). He knew Al-Queda and Osama were a growing threat and did NOTHING! Bush has had to deal with the mess Clinton has left our country in.

What did Bush do about USS Cole prior to 9/11? Oh wait, same thing Republicans do all the time. Blame Clinton.
In fact Bush did nothing about terrorism., result being 9/11. It was on his watch. It wasn't the day after the inaguration it was 9 months later.
Why did Bush not go after Al-Qaeda from day 1? Was he not aware of USS Cole, because it hapenned a couple months prior to him taking office? Bush blew it, that's all I got to say.
Clinton did 10x more about terrorism than Bush did prior to 9/11. He went after bin Laden. He didn't get him, but that was a priority. It wasn't even on Dubya's radar.
Reagan and Bush have nothing to do with the Clinton economy. If it wasn't for the burden of Reagan and Bush debts, our economy would have grown even faster.

Let's not get too far carried away with Clinton's record on terrorism. He easily could have had OBL if he would have wanted him......Article

This article probably overstates it a little, but there are several different sources that can corroborate it......

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The US will not take YES for an answer from Saddam.
Will take NO for an answer from North Korea though.
At least Bush is sticking to battles he can win. That's why he isn't talking about the economy much.
This president is a disaster. I hope Gore changes his mind and runs. Come 2004, people are going to be wishing they were back in Clinton-Gore times. It's Gore's for the taking if he's willing to take the heat from the GOP slander machine.

OMG, under Gore, we would be even worse. There would have been NO military action after 9/11. Our country would have a much bigger threat of a terrorist attack. All of the problems we are having today are a result of Clinton. 2000, the last year in Clinton's term, was a down year in the stock market and its economic policies that have caused the weakness of our economy now. The economy was booming under Clinton because of Regan and Bush's policies, which Clinton pretty much claiming credit for. 9/11, worries over more attacks, and worries over Iraq have accellerated the decline of the economy. All three of those could of been averted. Clinton however, when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq (95-96?) did nothing to make sure they went back in, he allowed Iraq to do whatever it wanted because no one was watching them. Under Clinton, our military operation grew 5x while he was cutting back its size. He allowed terrorist groups to grow in size and power. He did nothing about the USS Cole when there were know ties with the bombing to Al-Queda and Osama. He did nothing when Al-Queda blew up our embassy (kenya i think). He knew Al-Queda and Osama were a growing threat and did NOTHING! Bush has had to deal with the mess Clinton has left our country in.

What did Bush do about USS Cole prior to 9/11? Oh wait, same thing Republicans do all the time. Blame Clinton.
In fact Bush did nothing about terrorism., result being 9/11. It was on his watch. It wasn't the day after the inaguration it was 9 months later.
Why did Bush not go after Al-Qaeda from day 1? Was he not aware of USS Cole, because it hapenned a couple months prior to him taking office? Bush blew it, that's all I got to say.
Clinton did 10x more about terrorism than Bush did prior to 9/11. He went after bin Laden. He didn't get him, but that was a priority. It wasn't even on Dubya's radar.
Reagan and Bush have nothing to do with the Clinton economy. If it wasn't for the burden of Reagan and Bush debts, our economy would have grown even faster.

So clinton is responsible for 9/11, well , just shoot him then...

Oh, that the US pushed OBL out of SA didn't have anything to do with it, did it?

Simple message, you stay out of the middle east, the middle east will not attack you... did you get that, no, attack iraq, that will surely make them more friendly...

I'll tell you this, when i say what happened to the WTC, i lost a piece of faith in humanity, the next time, i will see it as something you had coming, so don't act surprised, what goes around...

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: Jmman

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The US will not take YES for an answer from Saddam.
Will take NO for an answer from North Korea though.
At least Bush is sticking to battles he can win. That's why he isn't talking about the economy much.
This president is a disaster. I hope Gore changes his mind and runs. Come 2004, people are going to be wishing they were back in Clinton-Gore times. It's Gore's for the taking if he's willing to take the heat from the GOP slander machine.

OMG, under Gore, we would be even worse. There would have been NO military action after 9/11. Our country would have a much bigger threat of a terrorist attack. All of the problems we are having today are a result of Clinton. 2000, the last year in Clinton's term, was a down year in the stock market and its economic policies that have caused the weakness of our economy now. The economy was booming under Clinton because of Regan and Bush's policies, which Clinton pretty much claiming credit for. 9/11, worries over more attacks, and worries over Iraq have accellerated the decline of the economy. All three of those could of been averted. Clinton however, when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq (95-96?) did nothing to make sure they went back in, he allowed Iraq to do whatever it wanted because no one was watching them. Under Clinton, our military operation grew 5x while he was cutting back its size. He allowed terrorist groups to grow in size and power. He did nothing about the USS Cole when there were know ties with the bombing to Al-Queda and Osama. He did nothing when Al-Queda blew up our embassy (kenya i think). He knew Al-Queda and Osama were a growing threat and did NOTHING! Bush has had to deal with the mess Clinton has left our country in.

What did Bush do about USS Cole prior to 9/11? Oh wait, same thing Republicans do all the time. Blame Clinton.
In fact Bush did nothing about terrorism., result being 9/11. It was on his watch. It wasn't the day after the inaguration it was 9 months later.
Why did Bush not go after Al-Qaeda from day 1? Was he not aware of USS Cole, because it hapenned a couple months prior to him taking office? Bush blew it, that's all I got to say.
Clinton did 10x more about terrorism than Bush did prior to 9/11. He went after bin Laden. He didn't get him, but that was a priority. It wasn't even on Dubya's radar.
Reagan and Bush have nothing to do with the Clinton economy. If it wasn't for the burden of Reagan and Bush debts, our economy would have grown even faster.

Let's not get too far carried away with Clinton's record on terrorism. He easily could have had OBL if he would have wanted him......Article

This article probably overstates it a little, but there are several different sources that can corroborate it......

I think that article is right on target. All these anti-americans like SnapIT fail to see this

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: Krk3561

Originally posted by: SuperTool
The US will not take YES for an answer from Saddam.
Will take NO for an answer from North Korea though.
At least Bush is sticking to battles he can win. That's why he isn't talking about the economy much.
This president is a disaster. I hope Gore changes his mind and runs. Come 2004, people are going to be wishing they were back in Clinton-Gore times. It's Gore's for the taking if he's willing to take the heat from the GOP slander machine.

OMG, under Gore, we would be even worse. There would have been NO military action after 9/11. Our country would have a much bigger threat of a terrorist attack. All of the problems we are having today are a result of Clinton. 2000, the last year in Clinton's term, was a down year in the stock market and its economic policies that have caused the weakness of our economy now. The economy was booming under Clinton because of Regan and Bush's policies, which Clinton pretty much claiming credit for. 9/11, worries over more attacks, and worries over Iraq have accellerated the decline of the economy. All three of those could of been averted. Clinton however, when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq (95-96?) did nothing to make sure they went back in, he allowed Iraq to do whatever it wanted because no one was watching them. Under Clinton, our military operation grew 5x while he was cutting back its size. He allowed terrorist groups to grow in size and power. He did nothing about the USS Cole when there were know ties with the bombing to Al-Queda and Osama. He did nothing when Al-Queda blew up our embassy (kenya i think). He knew Al-Queda and Osama were a growing threat and did NOTHING! Bush has had to deal with the mess Clinton has left our country in.

What did Bush do about USS Cole prior to 9/11? Oh wait, same thing Republicans do all the time. Blame Clinton.
In fact Bush did nothing about terrorism., result being 9/11. It was on his watch. It wasn't the day after the inaguration it was 9 months later.
Why did Bush not go after Al-Qaeda from day 1? Was he not aware of USS Cole, because it hapenned a couple months prior to him taking office? Bush blew it, that's all I got to say.
Clinton did 10x more about terrorism than Bush did prior to 9/11. He went after bin Laden. He didn't get him, but that was a priority. It wasn't even on Dubya's radar.
Reagan and Bush have nothing to do with the Clinton economy. If it wasn't for the burden of Reagan and Bush debts, our economy would have grown even faster.

So clinton is responsible for 9/11, well , just shoot him then...

Oh, that the US pushed OBL out of SA didn't have anything to do with it, did it?

Simple message, you stay out of the middle east, the middle east will not attack you... did you get that, no, attack iraq, that will surely make them more friendly...

I'll tell you this, when i say what happened to the WTC, i lost a piece of faith in humanity, the next time, i will see it as something you had coming, so don't act surprised, what goes around...

Only problem is, Saudi and Kuwait asked for our help.

 

[smartt]

I don't give a sh2t about Clinton or Bush, but I do know we have the power to get rid of them when needed. What do the Iraqis have? The frickin' idiot had the gall to say he won a legitimate election in which nobody ran against him. Give me one half-clear shot at that whimpering clown and I'll show you how to clean up the world.

 

[smartt]

Simple message, you stay out of the middle east, the middle east will not attack you... did you get that, no, attack iraq, that will surely make them more friendly...

Damn, that sounds a lot like what Sweden said about Germany.

 

[ZapZilla]

Disarm? Ya mean, Saddam is going to cut his own arms off...

 

[DurocShark]

But you don't think it should be seen first whether or not he means what he destroys them?

C'mon. Gimme a break. Here in Cali we have a 3 strikes law... Fvck up 3 times, you're in jail for life.

How many times we gonna let Sad Huss fvck up? Not even counting the UN resolutions he's ignored:

• Gassed his own people to protect his position.

• Endeavored to build weapons of mass destruction.

• Begun a war of aggression against his neighbor Iran.

• After that failed, rebuilds his military and begins ANOTHER war of aggression against his other neighbor Kuwait.

• He's stated several times in his long career that he believes he should be in charge of all Islamic nations, or the entire Middle East, whichever gives him more power.

• Supported terrorism in at least one documented way: Families of Palestinian suicide bombers who get their houses levelled by pissed off Israelis get a big fat check from Iraq.

The UN has become a joke. In fact, I believe it always has been one. Since WWII there have been how many wars of aggression that the UN either ignored or ineffectually attempted to stop? I really don't give a rat's poop what other nations think. If we consider Iraq a thorn in the side of Western Civilization, then we need to remove that thorn. End of story.

As for NK, they're already quite powerful. But when Clinton wanted to take care of them during his term, he was begged by the South Korean government to back down. Hence the payoff NK walked away with. Bush is stuck having to figure out how to disable a nuclear nation without destroying the neighboring countries. That's why NK is on the "back burner" for now.

 

[smartt]

Disarm? Ya mean, Saddam is going to cut his own arms off...

That would be great. Then we wouldn't have to watch pictures of him shooting his Daisy BB gun out on his balcony.

 

[SnapIT]

Two known terrorist nations asked for you help and? you helped, you actually gave money that went directly to a terrorist attack in your country, you even trained the soldiers who did this... GREAT JOB!!! (applause)

Iraq, a nation which is known not for harbouring terrrorists, but for fighting them are asking for you help and you want to destroy that nation, what government will follow?ooooooohhhh... surprise surprise, an american one... yeeehaaaw, and what will that mean?

Yes, of course, an american government will soooooooo much stabilize the area...

Next up, syria (percieved threat)......

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: smartt
Simple message, you stay out of the middle east, the middle east will not attack you... did you get that, no, attack iraq, that will surely make them more friendly...

Damn, that sounds a lot like what Sweden said about Germany.

Please, PLEASE elaborate on this one, i would like to tear you to shreds... 😀

 

[smartt]

Two known terrorist nations asked for you help and? you helped, you actually gave money that went directly to a terrorist attack in your country, you even trained the soldiers who did this... GREAT JOB!!! (applause)

Ahhh.... It's funny how you just chose to ignore the Sweden comment. Oh, that's right you guys ignore everything until a tank comes rolling through your village. You'll be the first crying for Americans to save you. I mean Jesus H Christ what does anyone expect from a country that thinks a weapon should include a wine opener.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Two known terrorist nations asked for you help and? you helped, you actually gave money that went directly to a terrorist attack in your country, you even trained the soldiers who did this... GREAT JOB!!! (applause)

Iraq, a nation which is known not for harbouring terrrorists, but for fighting them are asking for you help and you want to destroy that nation, what government will follow?ooooooohhhh... surprise surprise, an american one... yeeehaaaw, and what will that mean?

Yes, of course, an american government will soooooooo much stabilize the area...

Next up, syria (percieved threat)......

And we did so with Un approval. I guess we should have left Saddam have the entire middle east.

 

[smartt]

Please, PLEASE elaborate on this one, i would like to tear you to shreds... what makes you think you could tear me to shreds? so far, all I've seen is a bunch of p*ssy a$$ pacifist statements about how we should act like what happens on the other side of the world has no affect on America.