On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 10:30:46 GMT, The_Fist <johngons@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
Does America have Nuclear weapons?
Does America have ANY WOMD?
>Cardman, we've had some good times on the Charmed board. I ignored
>the first post to keep from feeding the ng trolls but as an American
>Republican who sup****ts Bush I now have no choice...
>
>>France like many UN countries saw no need for military action, when
>>Iraq was in no position to be a threat to anyone.
>
>Do you remember the Delfuer re****t? That's the re****t that was done by
>the Iraq Survey Commission after the fall of Saddam. That's also the
>same re****t that the liberals of the world are trumpeting as the
>definitive proof of there being no WMDs in Iraq. That re****t had
>another little twist to it that wasn't re****ted on much by the "elite
>media" here in the states who were rooting for Kerry.
>
>It seems as though France, Germany, and Russia (coincidentally the
>parties in the Security Council that opposed US action) all had one
>thing in common: they were making BILLIONS off Saddam's regime! They
>were getting vouchers for millions of barrels of oil and money
>siphoned off from the Oil-for-Food Program was given directly to
>officials in these countries and the UN as BRIBES!
>
> John Kerry called the coalition helping the US in Iraq a "coalition
>of the bribed and the cohersed." It turns out the only ones being
>bribed were the UN Security Council being bribed by Saddam Hussein!
>
>France's inaction had nothing to do with Saddam's status as a threat.
>They were looking out for their MONETARY interests!
>
>>This War was sold to the voters as being due to Saddam having WMDs and
>>thus a threat. It is clear enough to see now that this was one of
>>Bush's fabrication from beginning to end.
>>
>>Bush promised us WMD. So where are they?
>
>In 2002, the CIA said Iraq had WMDs. British Intelligence said Iraq
>had WMDs. Russian Intelligence said Iraq had WMDs. The UN Security
>Council unanimously approved resolution 1441, ordering Saddam to
>dsiarm and disclose. That meant they thought Saddam was hiding
>something.
>
>But here's the trump card, Cardman!... In December 1998, President
>William Jefferson Clinton ordered a week-long bombing campaign of Iraq
>citing Iraq's "nuclear, chemical, and biological" weapons
>capabilities! Clinton attacked Iraq citing WMDs as his reason! Did
>the liberals on this planet develop amnesia!?!?!
>
>Where was John Kerry then? Where was Howard Dean then? Where was Terry
>McAuliffe then? Where was George Soros then? Where was Michael Moore
>then? Where was France and Germany then? Where were YOU then?
>Clinton also went into Bosnia and Serbia unilaterally when neither of
>those countries were a threat to the US. Why isn't anyone on the left
>calling Clinton a warmongerer?!
>
>Funny how two presidents in less than 4 years make the EXACT SAME CASE
>for Iraq's WMDs but it's treated and percieved sooooo differently
>since once a Dem and one's a Republican!
>
>The fact is that EVERYONE thought Iraq had WMDs and for the left to
>pin the whole thing on George Bush is nothing but scapegoating and
>running for cover.
>
>>WTC 9/11 highlights that they were not looking well enough to start
>>with. They were in with his organization, where this one thing took
>>years of planning.
>>
>>They were blind enough to not see this coming, when it happened there
>>once before, only highlights that they are virtually helpless
>>concerning things that happen in other countries.
>
>We had a lot of warning and you're right; it was ignored... but not
>by president Bush.
>
>Let me give you a history lesson about Al Qaeda's attacks on America
>and our interests:
>
>- 1993: WTC bombed
>- 1996: Khobar Towers bombed
>- 1998: American embassies in Africa bombed
>- 2000: USS Cole bombed
>
>All of these attacks went unanswered by America. Geee. who was
>President during this time? I'll give you a hint: it's the same
>president that had Yasser Arafat (the guy controlling the on/off
>button to Hamas and Islamic Jihad) as a guest to the White House more
>than any other foreign leader.
>
>That's right, William Jefferson Clinton! You could the case that Bush
>may have ignored warnings but the an was in the White House for less
>than 8 months when 9/11 happened. Bill Clinton had EIGHT YEARS of
>warning and did nothing!
>
>For the liberals to hang 9/11 around Bush's neck without holding
>Clinton to any level of accountability is like throwing a hotel party,
>tra****ng the room and getting mad at the janitor who's cleaning the
>place up for the mess!
>
>>Therefore, these public bombings have increased directly due to Bush's
>>Warmongering ways.
>
>Bombings may have increased but not in the US. We haven't been hit in
>over 3 years. You see if you'd clean out your ears once in a while
>you'd know that the point of the War on Terror is to fight the
>terrorists where THEY live. We're fighting them in Iraq now so we
>don't have to face them here at home.
>
>>Since both Iran and North Korea are on Bush's "axis of evil"
>>(countries who don't like us) invasion list, then that is why both are
>>now working on nuclear technology. And if you remove Bush's threat,
>>then the reason to make nuclear bombs is now greatly reduced.
>
>>So all he is doing is stirring up more trouble for himself.
>
>More blaming Bush for messes that were already there.
>
>- Iran, believe it or not, was America's ALLY in the Cold War until
>Jimminy ****in Carter decided to turn his back on the Shah (who was
>our friend) and the Ayatollah and radical Mullahs took over. They've
>been a rogue state and sponsor of terror every since. Thank you to
>the appeasing left-wing peaceniks of the world!
>
> - North Korea: yet another failed attempt at appeasement. Do you
>know where North Korea got their nuclear reactors from by chance?
>I'll give you a hint: they got them from a treaty with the US in 1994.
>That's right! It's Clinton again! Slick Willy and his Secretary of
>State, Madeline Albright signed a non-proliferation treaty giving them
>2 reactors to develop nuclear energy to give power to their people.
>Kim Jong Il then decided to **** his people and turn that nuclear
>capability into 3 or 4 nukes. Way to go! Good job!
>
>>>Like I said before, some want to tie our hands behind our backs and we
just
>>>sit there and get attacked.
>>
>>The only people that have been attacked include the US
>
>So 200 Russian school children being mowed down, a train being bombed
>in Spain, and repeated attacks on Israel don't count?
>
>>due to their
>>extremely biased and hostile view in the Middle East. No doubt the
>>others are caused by local unrest.
>
>So we get attacked, we retaliate, and WE'RE the hostiles? Do you work
>for the New Tork Times by any chance?
>
>>It would be extremely hard to believe that the likes would happen in
>>places like France and Germany simply because they have not been going
>>around peeing people off.
>
>Or the fact that they're making back-alley deals with Saddam Hussein
>may also have something to do with it.
>
>>What is going on in Iraq is insurgence. The US are the invaders and
>>occupiers, where an increasing number of the population are now
>>fighting for their freedom.
>
>insurgence: n : an organized rebellion aimed at overthrowing a
>constituted government through the use of subversion and armed
>conflict
>
>What's going on in Iraq is chaos being orchestrated by people who
>DON'T want a constituted government to be formed. Insurgence is
>people rebelling against THEIR government. The Iraqis in the army now
>fighting at the US's side against the Batthists and Saddam loyalists
>are the insurgents. the guys etting off car bombs are TERRORISTS.
>
>>I would have to seek out some latest figures, where last I heard over
>>1000 US troops had been killed. Iraqi civilian deaths would be
>>anything between 17,000 and 100,000.
>>
>>One reason for that unknown figure is that the Pentagon refuses to
>>keep a figure concerning the number of Iraqi civilians that they have
>>killed, which is hardly respectful.
>
>>So this number of men, women and children is a biased estimate based
>>on who you ask.
>
>So NOW someone wants the number of Iraqi casualties counted. But that
>didn't fit into John Kerry's "America is suffering 90% of the
>casualties" speech!
>
>Here's a stat for ya: In 1988 when the Kurds rose up against Saddam
>(BTW there is not a single US soldier in the Kurdish lands to the
>North. They absolutely love us there!) Saddam gassed them and
>estimates put the number of dead in that one incident betweeen 50,000
>and 100,000. Most of them, the women and children you're NOW suddenly
>so concerned about.
>
>It's estimated that Saddam has killed bewteen 500,000 and 800,000
>people in the last 15 years or so. Even if what everything you're
>saying is true about Bush's motives for this war, this mission, and
>the lives of the 1000+ American soldiers, at WORST was a humanitarian
>effort to stop the next 500,000 from dying.
>
>And for you liberal assholes to demean that by insinuating that our
>efforts to relieve that killing and suffering are the root CAUSE of
>the Iraqi people's suffering and pain ABSOLUTELY SICKENS me!
>
>>Kind of a lot of deaths just to protect Saddam from being a threat to
>>anyone, which he was not even in the first place.
>
>Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people that were killed by
>Saddams chemical weapons in the Kurdish north and the Iranian war.
>
>>Let me put it this way, when what now is a good reason for all these
>>deaths?
>
>>No WMDs.
>
>"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military
>and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their
>mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons
>programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors...
>
>"if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away
>with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by
>the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he
>has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday --
>make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past. "
>- Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
>
>>No Al-Qaeda.
>
>"Terrorists are pouring over the border into Iraq every day"
>- John Kerry, 1st Presidential debate.
>
>>Not even an Iraqi took part in WTC 9/11.
>
>And Germany and Italy didn't attack us on December 7, 1941 either.
>But FDR knew he had to fight fascism wherever it was and George Bush
>knows we have to fight to fight terrorists and state sponsors of
>terror. I know Iran and North Korea are bigger threats but Clinton
>argued that point quite well also:
>
>"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic
>missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them.
>Not once, but repeatedly."
>- Bill Clinton, December 16, 1998
>
>If people like Cradman here are the "allies" we need to have on our
>side, who needs enemies? We should have left Europe in the heap it
>was after WWII and made them rebuild their damn selves.
|
