![]() |
Put your money were your mouth is! OT
Don't bring God into it. You're not qualified. I think
Bush would be well qualified to attack Mexico. In fact, that's just about all he's qualified to do. So, what you're saying is that the British and Kurds are now responsible for our foreign policy decisions. Thanks for clearing that up. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Horvath" wrote in message ... On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:45:04 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz" wrote this crap: Bush lied about Iraq. He had it on his agenda from the very beginning. For God's sake, we have plans on the table to attack, or defend every country on the planet. If we were going to attack Mexico, there would already be plans somewhere. He lied about his reasons for going to war and didn't bother to follow up with the intelligence services. That's bull****. He put everything on the table. And nobody really knows where the intelligence problems were. For all of Clinton's faults, he did do that. A couple of shells don't match the tons of wmds that Powel and others claimed were there. And the British said they were there. And the Kurds said they were there. And the UN said they were there. And so on. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Put your money were your mouth is! OT
I think it is just a manipulation game of the sheep like masses to regain
power in Washington, nothing more! Family Sailor, actually i think it is the liberals that are unwittingly the terrorists there is plenty that points to the *possibility* that WMD's found their way to Syria --actually it is not liberalism ........it is infantile narcissism, sometimes affected by ritilan deprevation. don't confuse the two---they are very different. gf. |
Put your money were your mouth is! OT
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
... Come on... get real. Bu**** made all sorts of claims as to why we should attack Iraq. So far, none of them have any credibility. You can dance all you want, but the fact remains that the American people were mislead by the current administration in the White House. Actually the miss leading is taking place now with the distortion of facts and ignoring anything that will make the current administration look good. It is just an attempt to manipulate the sheep like masses to help the Democratic party regain power in Washington. |
Put your money were your mouth is! OT
OzOne wrote in message Pete, I think the point is that the US was convinced that there were huge stockpiles of WMD when the UN inspection guys were saying that they had no evidence to support that and were not given access to the US intelligence to confirm or refute the US conviction. The US used the excuse that to allow the inspectors access to their information would alert the Iraqis who would move the stuff. Many saw then that this was a ploy by the US to keep their very sketchy information to themselves so it couldn't be questioned or dismissed. Why? To achieve the aim that Bush had even before he was confirmed as president...to finish daddys business. There is plenty of hearsay about these intentions, and to use the US basis for invasion, "where there's smoke, there's fire" This is probably the most accurate and BS-free assessment of what really happened. It's nice to see someone present the facts dispassionately. Thanks, Oz. Max |
Put your money were your mouth is! OT
"FamilySailor" wrote in message
... Good point, but Clinton didn't lie about why we were going to Bosnia. Bush lied. That's the criminal aspect. I really don't think he lied.... I agree. Saying things that are not true is not necessarily lying unless one KNOWS that what (s)he is about to say is false. Bush's statements about WMDs fall into that catagory. He either knew Saddam had no meaningful amount of WMDs or he didn't. If he knew, then he is a liar, and should be replaced. If he didn't, as I suspect, then he is far to ignorant and stupid to remain President. Which is it? But that's water over the dam. Question is what to do now we know better. Do we stay in and bleed our own country and our military white like LBJ did in 'nam or do we cut our losses and leave Iraq to become like Iran. |
Put your money were your mouth is! OT
"FamilySailor" wrote
OK, what is a weapon of mass destruction. Is saran (sp?) gas a weapon of mass destruction? Depends on the quantity - did Saddam have enough to cause "mass destruction"? No. Is putting out a hit on the George Bush a threat to America? Is firing missiles at American fighter pilots a threat? No! Neither are threats TO AMERICA nor is there any credible evidence that Saddam's government sanctioned either one. If OzOne or Mooron threaten to whup me does that make Australia and Canada threats to the US? I don't think so. If some fustrated Iraqii officer gets fustrated at being bitch-slapped around by Americans and fires a missile he knows has a near-zero chance of hitting anything (part of his fustration) does that mean Saddam ordered it? Not likely! After 'Desert Storm' Saddam knew damn well what would happen to him if he had and prolly had the perps shot! Face it, the Village Idiot has nearly bankrupt us to destroy the only secular government in the region and it did not support Al Quida. The BEST that can happen now is for it to be replaced by one just like it because that Saddam's kind of repression is the only way to keep these people from slaughtering each other but that's not likely. The most likely outcome is a Shiite theoracy like Iran's that craps on Sunnis and Kurds even worse than Saddam did and DOES support Al Quida's goals. Worst case is something like the Taliban had. Gee thanks Georgie Boy! |
Put your money were your mouth is! OT
"felton" wrote
Oh, well if it was "possible", then by all means start a war. I guess there isn't much difference than saying that someone "might" have the intent to develop WMDs so .... Your honor, I had to shoot the bitch or she might have gotten mad, bought a gun and shot me someday. It's a Texas tradition: BATF: We had to attack that religeous retreat. They might have been planning to make illegal weapons. An insane man in an institution said so. So did my invisible friend. FBI: Yes, then we had to murder the witnesses, including 40 women & children, to protect BATFs reputation. |
Put your money were your mouth is! OT
"SAIL LOCO" wrote
The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN resolutions. Oh? I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right that he would distance us from the UN. Does this mean he's really a closet pinko, taking orders from the UN? Does he ever wear a tu tu? |
Put your money were your mouth is! OT
Invading Iraq threatened more US lives than firing missiles at US fighter
pilots. How many US servicemen died as a result of Saddam's missiles? How many died as a result of the invasion? Let me see.... How many were in the Twin towers??? Didn't Russia tell us they had intelligence that Iraq was planning a terrorist attack in the US also? I guess we should just ignore it, huh? I guess Bush made up and manipulated the intelligence the previous administration got too, huh? Of course if Bush acts on intelligent he is manipulating it and a warmonger, if he doesn't he is not protecting the American people and he is to blame for people dieing. It looks like he is doing the responsible thing and acting on the intelligence to protect the country (Much more than anyone else has done, by far), despite the ones who want to just act like the world is a beautiful place and ignore the dangers and smell the flowers in their make-believe little world. Maybe if we get on our knees and cry, "Please don't hurt us Mr. Terrorist!" I think the current administration does what needs to be done, despite the slanting and attacking by the liberal press. And the reason Bush 41 called off the attack was because the liberals were crying that is was horrible to pursue them! Bush 43 did not letting that same bunch sidetrack him from what had to be done. |
Put your money were your mouth is! OT
I guess he's flip flopped on that one... looks like now he really, really
wants the UN involved in Iraq. I call that a flip flop. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Vito" wrote in message ... "SAIL LOCO" wrote The main reason we went to Iraq is Iraq refused for 12 years to meet UN resolutions. Oh? I thot Bush had promised his Religo-nazi friends from the xian right that he would distance us from the UN. Does this mean he's really a closet pinko, taking orders from the UN? Does he ever wear a tu tu? |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:58 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com