Let me get this straight... You say its easy to see where i'm wrong but you dont respond after numerous responses to do so. And "show me where I'm wrong is not a guestion but implies that you PROVE how you got your opinion. If you want to insult me personally and show no proof, then go ahead. At least i try to back up my arguments.
Let me get this straight... You say its easy to see where i'm wrong but you dont respond after numerous responses to do so. And "show me where I'm wrong is not a guestion but implies that you PROVE how you got your opinion. If you want to insult me personally and show no proof, then go ahead. At least i try to back up my arguments.
for fvcks sake....
OK, let me try this again. Someone didn't pay attention or maybe even hear Bush's speech.
According to the UN and weapons inspectors back in the 90's, Iraq had ingredients for WMD. This isn't US intellegence which can be debated, but facts from the UN...just want everyone to catch that little point. Iraq also had 26000 warheads to carry WMD. This means Iraq and Sadaam were guilty a long time ago. They need to prove to the world that they have disarmed, but they have no proof that they have destroyed this stuff and they won't tell anyone where it is. This stuff has to be somewhere. We found about 16 of the empty warheads a week or so ago, where are the rest? Where are all those chemicals?
Another point about NK that I think has some validity. I think the fact that we have overlooked, ignored, or simply disregarded Saddam's blatant violation of every UN agreement has given NK the impression that we will not enforce compliance. If Saddam can "get away with murder" , why can't NK?
Yes, and the fact that NK have said that they have nukes, have thrown out the inspectors, said that a war with US is inevitable and that they are going to start WWIII is what? Not a threat?
You have to be pretty dense not to get those exact words as non-threatening...
Let's quit all of this "we do it for the irakis" and "they are threatening" bs... and see that just as much as france and russia has interests to protect, so does the US...
Did I ever say that NK was "nonthreatening"? Maybe you can find that quote in there somewhere since you seem to be so adept at using the quote function. 
And I also don't think that I said anything about us not having interests in the middle east. Let me ask you this? Do you drive a car? Well, I guess you have interests in the middle east as well......
And I also don't think that I said anything about us not having interests in the middle east. Let me ask you this? Do you drive a car? Well, I guess you have interests in the middle east as well......*sighs* just *sighs*
It is NOT ABOUT WHAT THEY HAD BACK THEM, IT IS NOT ABOUT EMPTY WARHEADS (empty, if that does not give you a clue, then forget it), IT IS NOT ABOUT THE ALUMINUM CYLINDERS THAT WERE LEGIT (although B and company tried to force feed info that was so incorrect)...
IT IS ABOUT NOW! WHAT DO THEY HAVE NOW...
there, nice and large text for you... got it this time?
Quoting Mr. Gore "I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Of course, I can see how you might not interpret "initiative to create" as meaning "invent", but the other 99.9% of the rational world did. Just like Clinton didn't have "sexual relations" with Lewinsky...Originally posted by: fluxquantum
Originally posted by: Jmman
Like liberals have never made mistakes or verbal slips. Just ask Gore about "inventing the internet"......
he never said that. read here: internet
Like i said before: sometimes you have to do something that people will hate you for, for the greater good.
And Jmman is taking care of korea. It is a little more difficult, he has nukes; thanks to the idea of apeasement of clinton and the UN. So we must not do the same thing with iraq, i hope you at least understand that.
And Jmman is taking care of korea. It is a little more difficult, he has nukes; thanks to the idea of apeasement of clinton and the UN. So we must not do the same thing with iraq, i hope you at least understand that.
How did i get my opinion, simple, the UN performs their inspections and found nada... what you think is something is something i could reproduce in my basement without trying...
The thing is, i have had this discussion with people who can at least argue, like e-tech and charrison... so use the search function... repeating myself time after time get's boring...
This reply was worth postcount +1
IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO PROVE SADAM DOES OR DOESN'T HAVE WMDS, IT'S SADAM'S JOB TO PROVE HE'S DISARMMING.
there, nice and large text for you... got it this time?
I have little doubt that any great leader (good or bad) thinks he does something for the greater good...
NK does NOT have nukes, if you would listen to the people who know you would know that... they CLAIM they have nukes but they don't..
How about Wilson, during WWI he did everything to stop us from going to war; that's how he was reelected. But he realized it was inevitible, and his 14 points proved he believed that he joined the war for the greater good of the world and not for territory.
I suppose the 1.25 million does of Atropine Iraq ordered were just in case we used nerve gas on them?? Or maybe every citizen in Iraq is going to have a heart attack in the next year or so....
There is an old saying, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then maybe it's a duck. We have been playing this little game with Saddam since the end of the gulf war. Isn't it maybe time to finally do something about it?
There is an old saying, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then maybe it's a duck. We have been playing this little game with Saddam since the end of the gulf war. Isn't it maybe time to finally do something about it?
It's about Saddam, and a little treaty he signed a decade ago, and everything he has done since that time to break the treaty. It's about his most recent proclamtion to cooperate fully and unconditionally (his words) with the UN inspections teams, and then refusing to do so. It's about committing to permitting the inspections teams to interview scientists alone, and then refusing to do so. He's made a game out of running (ruining) his country, and has made no bones about ignoring the rest of the free world. Iraq is a loose cannon that the US and UN cannot afford to let have free reign. North Korea pounding their own war drum will get them attention as well, but it's not as pressing RIGHT NOW as Saddam is. Never fear, they will be dealt with in due time.
Noxipoo. When in elementary school I had a teacher tell me to look up a word in the dictionary that I didn't understand. I'll do the work for you. Hitlerism is a word.
http://www.onelook.com/?w=Hitlerism&ls=a[L=Text]The Defenitions of Hitlerism as defined by several dictionaries
http://www.onelook.com/?w=Hitlerism&ls=a[L=Text]The Defenitions of Hitlerism as defined by several dictionaries
Okay so I don't know how to work this link thing, copy and paste, not too much work I hope
http://www.onelook.com/?w=Hitlerism&ls=a
http://www.onelook.com/?w=Hitlerism&ls=a
Iraq does in fact have ties to terrorists (Re: Ramzi Yousef) who have attacked us on our soil. Saddam is in fact a brutal dictator. Is he the only one? Not by a long shot. But he is one that we can look at and see. He's expressing no interest in changing his ways, but he has expressed interest in using WMD's in the past and future. Means, opporunity, and capability define a threat. He has all THREE.
I'd also like to point out that he can cause a great deal of harm to our country and way of life merely by his physical location. He could start a conflict there which would cause energy problems for the world. Is it our fault that we are dependent on other countries for our chief source of energy? Yes. Did we do it to ourselves? Yes. Does that change the fact that our country will suffer great harm if we don't get oil from the region? No. He's posing a threat to us and others on a lot of different levels. A war over oil doesn't sound very elegant, or nice. In fact, it's not. It's only part of the deal, but it IS in the picture. When I went over there and fought and killed, I did it for a lot of reasons. Those who go this time will, as well. It is a complex issue, but part of it is securing basic rights for many oppressed people, and protecting our way of life. The politics which accompany it are messy.
I'd also like to point out that he can cause a great deal of harm to our country and way of life merely by his physical location. He could start a conflict there which would cause energy problems for the world. Is it our fault that we are dependent on other countries for our chief source of energy? Yes. Did we do it to ourselves? Yes. Does that change the fact that our country will suffer great harm if we don't get oil from the region? No. He's posing a threat to us and others on a lot of different levels. A war over oil doesn't sound very elegant, or nice. In fact, it's not. It's only part of the deal, but it IS in the picture. When I went over there and fought and killed, I did it for a lot of reasons. Those who go this time will, as well. It is a complex issue, but part of it is securing basic rights for many oppressed people, and protecting our way of life. The politics which accompany it are messy.
Thanks BigJelly I thought that was what I did but I must have miffed it up somewhere along the process.
You must have serious mental problems.
Iraq had ingredients for WMD, including chemicals, not just empty warheads. According to UN resolutions they need to disarm and provide proof that they have destroyed these things.
Where are these things now? Yes, the issue is what they have now and they cannot prove they destroyed the chemicals or 26,000 warheads. Does this not bother you?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter