| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Gactimus" |
| Date: |
08 Oct 2004 04:03:26 PM |
| Object: |
Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone
around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly,
the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just
had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam
seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals,
that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we
reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is
that?
.
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: IRRational conservatives vs chain-reasoning liberals |
08 Oct 2004 05:21:49 PM |
|
|
"Gactimus" <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in message
news:ygD9d.555$%x.420@okepread04...
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone
around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly,
the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just
had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam
seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals,
that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we
reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is
that?
Hey Idiot.
When did the "and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly" part happen
in 2003?
Here's another one for you, you IRRATIONAL RIGHTARD.
A cop points a gun at the gunman with a pistol and tells him to put it down.
(The gunman with a pistol also has a hostage.) The cop makes the demand again
and says "Let go of the hostage." The gunman knows there is no way out and
complies. He puts the gun down. He lets go of the hostage.
The cop shoots him anyway.
______________________
Early March 2003:
1.Destruction of Al Samoud 2 short-range missiles begins under UN supervision
and continues in days following. Twenty-eight missiles destroyed through 6
March. Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix calls destruction of missiles "a
very significant piece of real disarmament."
2. Late February 2003
Iraq begins UN-monitored excavation at site sixty miles south of Baghdad where
it claims large quantities of prohibited chemical and biological agents were
disposed in 1991. Invites UN officials to gather physical evidence at the site
to seek confirmation that prohibited items were destroyed.2 Excavation reveals
remnants of approximately 150 R-400 bombs that had contained anthrax.
3. 14 February 2003
Hans Blix reports that Iraq has provided a list of eighty-three individuals
involved in the 1991 destruction of prohibited materials from biological weapons
and missile programs.3 The individuals are made available for interview to help
provide evidence of the claimed destruction of prohibited items.
4. 14 February 2003
At the insistence of UN officials Saddam Hussein issued a presidential decree
banning the production of weapons of mass destruction in accordance with
Security Council resolutions.4 This fulfills the obligation in previous UN
resolutions that Iraq renounce the development or use of weapons of mass
destruction.
5. 10 February 2003
Iraq agrees to allow U-2 surveillance flights in accordance with UN demands. U-2
flights begin 17 February, with Iraq assuring the safety of flights as required
by Security Council Resolution 1441.5
6. 6 February 2003
Baghdad allows first private interview to be conducted with Iraqi scientist.
Interview takes place in Baghdad hotel. Subsequent interviews occur in early
March.6
7. 27 January 2003
Blix reports to the Security Council that Iraq has submitted a 193-page listing
of all imports by the agency responsible for biological weapons development.7
8. 20 January 2003
Iraq and UN reach 10-point agreement to better facilitate inspections. Agreement
includes provisions to form Iraqi commissions to determine locations of weapons
and documents left out of the 7 December weapons declaration and to conduct
technical discussions with the IAEA about nuclear-related imports.
9. 9 January 2003
Hans Blix reports to the Security Council that Iraq has cooperated by providing
an "open doors" policy of unfettered access to requested sites. According to a
later statement from Blix, "the most important point to make is that access has
been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect." IAEA director Mohamed
ElBaradei likewise reports on 9 January that "Iraqi authorities have
consistently provided access without conditions and without delay.10 Blix also
reports that Iraq has provided new information on its weapons activities,
including an "Air Force document" that may shed light on Iraq's use of chemical
weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.
10. 28 December 2002
Iraqi national monitoring directorate provides UNMOVIC with list of more than
500 individuals involved in the chemical, biological, and nuclear and ballistic
missile programs. In response to UN complaints that the list is inadequate, Iraq
provides eighty additional names in late January.
11. 7 December 2002
Iraq submits 12,000-page weapons declaration to UNMOVIC and IAEA one day in
advance of the 30-day deadline mandated in Resolution 1441.12 Although provided
on time, the weapons declaration is judged inadequate.
12. 16 September 2002
In response to President Bush's address at the UN General Assembly, Iraq agrees
to allow the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors. After refusing to
permit UN monitoring for nearly four years, Iraq quickly concedes to the demand
for renewed disarmament inspections.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Marxist Moore" |
|
| Title: Rational conservatives vs chain-smoking liberals (Liberals ASHAMED to be Liberals) |
08 Oct 2004 06:03:39 PM |
|
|
Liberals ASHAMED to be Liberals
.... or they're scared to admit it.
Yesterday we found out that the Democrats were going to call their
liberal talk radio network "Central Air." It's amazing ... they have
to begin the dishonesty in the very name they give to their talk radio
network! They don't even have the courage to give it the "liberal"
title that they are all so very proud of.
Here's a better name, just call it "Ignorance in Broadcasting."
Conservative talk show hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz
don't have to go out there and actually buy radio stations, as the
left has done, in order to get our shows aired. The difference
between our stations and the stations that will be owned by these
Democrat Party activists is that our stations air our programs because
their listeners want to listen to us. The Democrat's stations will
air the liberal talk shows because the have to.
Liberals can't compete because nobody wants tune in and hear how much
their country sucks for three hours.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Resasoned Insanity" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs chain-smoking liberals (Liberals ASHAMED to be Liberals) |
09 Oct 2004 12:06:44 AM |
|
|
"Michael Marxist Moore" <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote in message
news:247em09mjdnrecpl9koj9gir2vub4ehi2a@4ax.com...
Liberals ASHAMED to be Liberals
... or they're scared to admit it.
Yesterday we found out that the Democrats were going to call their
liberal talk radio network "Central Air." It's amazing ... they have
to begin the dishonesty in the very name they give to their talk radio
network! They don't even have the courage to give it the "liberal"
title that they are all so very proud of.
Here's a better name, just call it "Ignorance in Broadcasting."
Conservative talk show hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz
don't have to go out there and actually buy radio stations, as the
left has done, in order to get our shows aired. The difference
between our stations and the stations that will be owned by these
Democrat Party activists is that our stations air our programs because
their listeners want to listen to us. The Democrat's stations will
air the liberal talk shows because the have to.
Liberals can't compete because nobody wants tune in and hear how much
their country sucks for three hours.
--
Left-wing liberals are EVERYTHING they accuse the right of being. They
are mean, vicious, hateful, greedy, cold-hearted, closed-minded,
selfish, intolerant, bigoted and racist.
I could have swore that Fox News was owned by a liberal. It makes money
though.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs chain-smoking liberals (Liberals ASHAMED to be Liberals) |
08 Oct 2004 06:21:05 PM |
|
|
Hi LHA.
"Michael Marxist Moore" <mmmoore@N0TSPAM.0RG> wrote in message
news:247em09mjdnrecpl9koj9gir2vub4ehi2a@4ax.com...
Liberals ASHAMED to be Liberals
... or they're scared to admit it.
Yesterday we found out that the Democrats were going to call their
liberal talk radio network "Central Air." It's amazing ... they have
to begin the dishonesty in the very name they give to their talk radio
network! They don't even have the courage to give it the "liberal"
title that they are all so very proud of.
Gee LHA,
Why did you change your screen name?
Here's a better name, just call it "Ignorance in Broadcasting."
I do. Limpballs, Hamnity, Lard,... ALL of them ARE "Ignorance in Broadcasting."
or better yet "Broadcasting Ignorance".
Conservative talk show hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz
don't have to go out there and actually buy radio stations, as the
left has done, in order to get our shows aired.
Yeah... They have some Rightards with money do it for them.
The difference
between our stations and the stations that will be owned by these
Democrat Party activists is that our stations air our programs because
their listeners want to listen to us. The Democrat's stations will
air the liberal talk shows because the have to.
Liberals can't compete because nobody wants tune in and hear how much
their country sucks for three hours.
Fiction always out sells non-fiction....
What you say is A LIE anyway.
Early March 2003:
1.Destruction of Al Samoud 2 short-range missiles begins under UN supervision
and continues in days following. Twenty-eight missiles destroyed through 6
March. Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix calls destruction of missiles "a
very significant piece of real disarmament."
2. Late February 2003
Iraq begins UN-monitored excavation at site sixty miles south of Baghdad where
it claims large quantities of prohibited chemical and biological agents were
disposed in 1991. Invites UN officials to gather physical evidence at the site
to seek confirmation that prohibited items were destroyed.2 Excavation reveals
remnants of approximately 150 R-400 bombs that had contained anthrax.
3. 14 February 2003
Hans Blix reports that Iraq has provided a list of eighty-three individuals
involved in the 1991 destruction of prohibited materials from biological weapons
and missile programs.3 The individuals are made available for interview to help
provide evidence of the claimed destruction of prohibited items.
4. 14 February 2003
At the insistence of UN officials Saddam Hussein issued a presidential decree
banning the production of weapons of mass destruction in accordance with
Security Council resolutions.4 This fulfills the obligation in previous UN
resolutions that Iraq renounce the development or use of weapons of mass
destruction.
5. 10 February 2003
Iraq agrees to allow U-2 surveillance flights in accordance with UN demands. U-2
flights begin 17 February, with Iraq assuring the safety of flights as required
by Security Council Resolution 1441.5
6. 6 February 2003
Baghdad allows first private interview to be conducted with Iraqi scientist.
Interview takes place in Baghdad hotel. Subsequent interviews occur in early
March.6
7. 27 January 2003
Blix reports to the Security Council that Iraq has submitted a 193-page listing
of all imports by the agency responsible for biological weapons development.7
8. 20 January 2003
Iraq and UN reach 10-point agreement to better facilitate inspections. Agreement
includes provisions to form Iraqi commissions to determine locations of weapons
and documents left out of the 7 December weapons declaration and to conduct
technical discussions with the IAEA about nuclear-related imports.
9. 9 January 2003
Hans Blix reports to the Security Council that Iraq has cooperated by providing
an "open doors" policy of unfettered access to requested sites. According to a
later statement from Blix, "the most important point to make is that access has
been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect." IAEA director Mohamed
ElBaradei likewise reports on 9 January that "Iraqi authorities have
consistently provided access without conditions and without delay.10 Blix also
reports that Iraq has provided new information on its weapons activities,
including an "Air Force document" that may shed light on Iraq's use of chemical
weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.
10. 28 December 2002
Iraqi national monitoring directorate provides UNMOVIC with list of more than
500 individuals involved in the chemical, biological, and nuclear and ballistic
missile programs. In response to UN complaints that the list is inadequate, Iraq
provides eighty additional names in late January.
11. 7 December 2002
Iraq submits 12,000-page weapons declaration to UNMOVIC and IAEA one day in
advance of the 30-day deadline mandated in Resolution 1441.12 Although provided
on time, the weapons declaration is judged inadequate.
12. 16 September 2002
In response to President Bush's address at the UN General Assembly, Iraq agrees
to allow the unconditional return of UN weapons inspectors. After refusing to
permit UN monitoring for nearly four years, Iraq quickly concedes to the demand
for renewed disarmament inspections.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=B0b=B0_unny?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs chain-smoking liberals (Liberals ASHAMEDto be Liberals) |
08 Oct 2004 07:03:51 PM |
|
|
Michael Marxist Moore wrote:
Liberals ASHAMED to be Liberals
... or they're scared to admit it.
Yesterday we found out that the Democrats were going to call their
liberal talk radio network "Central Air." It's amazing ... they have
to begin the dishonesty in the very name they give to their talk radio
network! They don't even have the courage to give it the "liberal"
title that they are all so very proud of.
Here's a better name, just call it "Ignorance in Broadcasting."
Conservative talk show hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz
don't have to go out there and actually buy radio stations, as the
left has done, in order to get our shows aired. The difference
between our stations and the stations that will be owned by these
Democrat Party activists is that our stations air our programs because
their listeners want to listen to us. The Democrat's stations will
air the liberal talk shows because the have to.
Liberals can't compete because nobody wants tune in and hear how much
their country sucks for three hours.
repubicans do have a hard time facing the truth, dont they
hee hee
--
() ()
=°.°= i m a boy bunny !
(")(")
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ćrchie" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs chain-smoking liberals (Liberals ASHAMED to be Liberals) |
08 Oct 2004 06:24:25 PM |
|
|
Twas brillig and a slithy tove named Michael Marxist Moore didst gyre and
gimble in the wabe while reciting:
Liberals ASHAMED to be Liberals
... or they're scared to admit it.
Yesterday we found out that the Democrats were going to call their
liberal talk radio network "Central Air." It's amazing ... they have
to begin the dishonesty in the very name they give to their talk radio
network! They don't even have the courage to give it the "liberal"
title that they are all so very proud of.
Here's a better name, just call it "Ignorance in Broadcasting."
Conservative talk show hosts such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Boortz
don't have to go out there and actually buy radio stations, as the
left has done, in order to get our shows aired. The difference
between our stations and the stations that will be owned by these
Democrat Party activists is that our stations air our programs because
their listeners want to listen to us. The Democrat's stations will
air the liberal talk shows because the have to.
Liberals can't compete because nobody wants tune in and hear how much
their country sucks for three hours.
You, sir - are a liar.
Ćrchie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mel" |
|
| Title: Re: IRRational conservatives vs chain-reasoning liberals |
09 Oct 2004 05:19:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:21:49 GMT, "The Pretzel" <rold_gold@hotmail.com>
wrote in message <1qE9d.2243$Z5.2174@twister.socal.rr.com>:
A cop points a gun at the gunman with a pistol and tells him to put it down.
(The gunman with a pistol also has a hostage.) The cop makes the demand again
and says "Let go of the hostage." The gunman knows there is no way out and
complies. He puts the gun down. He lets go of the hostage.
The cop shoots him anyway.
sounds fair to me.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/
Cape Town news
http://adderleystreet.co.za/capetown/
.
|
|
|
| User: "GP of ATJ" |
|
| Title: Re: IRRational conservatives vs chain-reasoning liberals |
09 Oct 2004 07:03:39 AM |
|
|
"Mel" <mel@atj.fag.com> wrote in message
news:bskem09nvir4h81c06hdnmldm9h4kj480e@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:21:49 GMT, "The Pretzel" <rold_gold@hotmail.com>
wrote in message <1qE9d.2243$Z5.2174@twister.socal.rr.com>:
A cop points a gun at the gunman with a pistol and tells him to put it
down.
(The gunman with a pistol also has a hostage.) The cop makes the demand
again
and says "Let go of the hostage." The gunman knows there is no way out
and
complies. He puts the gun down. He lets go of the hostage.
The cop shoots him anyway.
sounds fair to me.
that's because you're into cold blooded killing fag boy.
Two weeks ago, was my forty-fifth birthday, and I wasn't feeling too hot
that morning anyway. I went into breakfast, knowing my wife would be
pleasant and say "Happy Birthday," and probably have a present for me. She
didn't even say "Good Morning," let alone any "Happy Birthday." I thought,
"Well, that's wives for you. The children will remember." The children came
in to breakfast and didn't say a word.
When I started to the office I was feeling pretty low and despondent. As I
walked into my office, my secretary, Janet said, "Good Morning, Boss, Happy
Birthday." And I felt a little better; someone had remembered. I worked
until noon. About noon, Janet knocked on my door and said, "You know, it's
such a beautiful day outside and it's your birthday, let's go to lunch, just
you and me." I said, "By George, that's the greatest thing I've heard all
day. Let's go."
We went to lunch. We didn't go where we normally go; we went out into the
country to a little private place. We had two martinis and enjoyed lunch
tremendously. On the way back to the office, she said, "You know, it's such
a beautiful day. We don't need to go back to the office, do we?" I said,
"No, I guess not." She said, "Let's go to my apartment."
After arriving at her apartment, we had another martini and smoked a
cigarette and she said, "Boss, if you don't mind, I think I'll go into the
bedroom and slip into something more comfortable." "Sure," I excitedly
replied. She went into the bedroom and, in about six minutes, she came
out...carrying a big birthday cake, followed by my wife, children, and
dozens of our friends. All were singing Happy Birthday.
... and there on the couch I sat... with nothing on but my socks......
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfag.com
http://www.atjfag.com/
Fag Town news
http://adderleystreet.co.za/capetown/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gactimus" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
09 Oct 2004 09:42:23 AM |
|
|
"GP of ATJ" <GP_of_ATJ@NoFagBoysAllowed.Com> wrote in
news:4167d332_1@newspeer2.tds.net:
"Mel" <mel@atj.fag.com> wrote in message
news:bskem09nvir4h81c06hdnmldm9h4kj480e@4ax.com...
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:21:49 GMT, "The Pretzel" <rold_gold@hotmail.com>
wrote in message <1qE9d.2243$Z5.2174@twister.socal.rr.com>:
A cop points a gun at the gunman with a pistol and tells him to put it
down. (The gunman with a pistol also has a hostage.) The cop makes the
demand again and says "Let go of the hostage." The gunman knows there
is no way out and complies. He puts the gun down. He lets go of the
hostage. The cop shoots him anyway.
sounds fair to me.
that's because you're into cold blooded killing fag boy.
Justice can be harsh.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mel" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
10 Oct 2004 11:54:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:42:23 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
message <jNS9d.626$vZ5.542@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
"GP of ATJ" <GP_of_ATJ@NoFagBoysAllowed.Com> wrote in
"Mel" <mel@atj.fag.com> wrote in message
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:21:49 GMT, "The Pretzel" <rold_gold@hotmail.com>
A cop points a gun at the gunman with a pistol and tells him to put it
down. (The gunman with a pistol also has a hostage.) The cop makes the
demand again and says "Let go of the hostage." The gunman knows there
is no way out and complies. He puts the gun down. He lets go of the
hostage. The cop shoots him anyway.
sounds fair to me.
that's because you're into cold blooded killing fag boy.
you'd better believe it. i'd kill you in a heart-beat.
Justice can be harsh.
the only way for it to be.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/
Cape Town news
http://adderleystreet.co.za/capetown/
.
|
|
|
| User: "GP of ATJ" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
11 Oct 2004 04:12:02 AM |
|
|
"Mel" <mel@atj.fag.com> wrote in message
news:gquim0p49rsbdo8ns5sev2r71c30jbfut9@4ax.com...
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:42:23 GMT, Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote in
message <jNS9d.626$vZ5.542@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>:
"GP of ATJ" <GP_of_ATJ@NoFagBoysAllowed.Com> wrote in
"Mel" <mel@atj.fag.com> wrote in message
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 22:21:49 GMT, "The Pretzel"
<rold_gold@hotmail.com>
A cop points a gun at the gunman with a pistol and tells him to put
it
down. (The gunman with a pistol also has a hostage.) The cop makes
the
demand again and says "Let go of the hostage." The gunman knows
there
is no way out and complies. He puts the gun down. He lets go of the
hostage. The cop shoots him anyway.
sounds fair to me.
that's because you're into cold blooded killing fag boy.
you'd better believe it. i'd kill you in a heart-beat.
you don't have the balls fag boy because you're a coward.
Justice can be harsh.
the only way for it to be.
and then you run to your slanly mommy crying your eyes out again fag boy.
A cowboy walks into a bar and sits next to another guy. They soon get into a
deep discussion about their sex lives and after a few the cowboy asks the
other dude, "Have you ever heard of the Rodeo Position?" The other man said
he hadn't so the cowboy continued in saying "Well, you mount your wife from
behind, cup her breasts firmly, and say'Hey,these are almost as good as your
sister's. See if you can stay on for 8 seconds."
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfag.com
http://www.atjfag.com/
Fag Town news
http://adderleystreet.co.za/capetown/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Keith E." |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
08 Oct 2004 07:56:08 PM |
|
|
Fri, 08 Oct 2004 21:03:26 GMT was a day just like any other,
until Gactimus <gactimus@xrs.net> wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone
around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly,
the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just
had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam
seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals,
that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we
reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is
that?
The french.
--
Keith E.
Excrementum casus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Wilcox" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
08 Oct 2004 05:19:09 PM |
|
|
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces everyone
around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and behaving recklessly,
the police are justified in shooting him (even if it turns out later he just
had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to the Duelfer report, Saddam
seems to have intentionally convinced other countries, and his own generals,
that he had WMDs. He also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we
reacted accordingly and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is
that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that since
the end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on either
end of the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
08 Oct 2004 05:37:16 PM |
|
|
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:miE9d.35372$jj2.1466227@news20.bellglobal.com...
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces
everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and
behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it
turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to
the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other
countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much
of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to
have had WMDs, whose fault is that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that since the
end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on either end of
the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions, shooting at our planes.
I still believe that we did the right thing of removing Saddam. I do think
Bush made a mistake though by not waiting a little longer for the
inspections.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mel" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
09 Oct 2004 05:19:46 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:37:16 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote in
message <5IOdnV_vwuBYiPrcRVn-hw@comcast.com>:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces
everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and
behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it
turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to
the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other
countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much
of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to
have had WMDs, whose fault is that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that since the
end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on either end of
the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions, shooting at our planes.
I still believe that we did the right thing of removing Saddam. I do think
Bush made a mistake though by not waiting a little longer for the
inspections.
I don't. Saddam should have been taken down in 1991.
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfaq.com
http://www.atjfaq.com/
Cape Town news
http://adderleystreet.co.za/capetown/
.
|
|
|
| User: "GP of ATJ" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
09 Oct 2004 10:02:22 AM |
|
|
"Mel" <mel@atj.fag.com> wrote in message
news:ebkem0lu3rg23b5oh05sh0ibi0152m9igh@4ax.com...
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 18:37:16 -0400, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote
in
message <5IOdnV_vwuBYiPrcRVn-hw@comcast.com>:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces
everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and
behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if
it
turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according
to
the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other
countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced
much
of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not
to
have had WMDs, whose fault is that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that since
the
end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on either end
of
the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions, shooting at our planes.
I still believe that we did the right thing of removing Saddam. I do
think
Bush made a mistake though by not waiting a little longer for the
inspections.
I don't. Saddam should have been taken down in 1991.
you should've been taken down yourself fag boy.
A man walks into a bar with an ostrich and a cat and sits at the bar. The
bartender walks over to them and says, "What can I get for you?"
The man says "I'll have a beer", the ostrich says, "I'll have a beer", and
the cat says, "I'll have half a beer and I'm not buying." So the bartender
says, "OK, that will be $3.87."
The man reaches into his pocket and brings out the exact change and pays
him. About an hour later the bartender goes back over to them and says,
"What'll you guys have?"
The man says, "I'll have a beer", the ostrich says, "I'll have a beer", and
the cat says "I'll have half a beer and I'm not buying." The bartender gets
them their beer and says "That'll be $3.87."
The man reaches into his pocket and brings out the exact change and pays
him. A couple of days later they come back into the bar and the bartender
walks over and asks "What do you guys want today?"
The man says, "I'll have a scotch", the ostrich says, "I'll have a bourbon",
and the cat says, "I'll have half a beer and I'm not buying." So the
bartender says "OK, that will be $7.53." The man reaches into his pocket and
brings out the exact change and pays him.
The bartender's curiosity got the best of him and he asks, "Why is it that
every time I tell you the amount you owe you always have the exact change in
you pocket?"
The man said, "I found a bottle with a genie in it and she granted me 3
wishes. My first wish was that I always have the exact change in my pocket
for anything I buy."
The bartender says, "That's a great wish...better than asking for a million
dollars. A million dollars will run out but that never will. What were your
other 2 wishes?"
The man says, "That's where I screwed up. I asked for a chick with long legs
and a tight *****."
--
smash yer modem, reboot, kill yerself
Mel the Defiler
member, ATJ regs
webmaster of atjfag.com
http://www.atjfag.com/
Fag Town news
http://adderleystreet.co.za/capetown/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=B0b=B0_unny?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
08 Oct 2004 07:06:11 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions,
glass houses stones
hello
--
() ()
=°.°= i m a boy bunny !
(")(")
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Wilcox" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
08 Oct 2004 06:56:42 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:miE9d.35372$jj2.1466227@news20.bellglobal.com...
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces
everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and
behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if it
turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly, according to
the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally convinced other
countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He also convinced much
of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly and he turns out not to
have had WMDs, whose fault is that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that since the
end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on either end of
the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions, shooting at our planes.
I still believe that we did the right thing of removing Saddam. I do think
Bush made a mistake though by not waiting a little longer for the
inspections.
Nice try at revision of History. Iraq was not invaded because "Saddam
was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving
nations...shooting at our planes". The reason given the world was he had
WMD in huge quantities, poison spraying drones, possibly nuclear weapons
and could strike at any moment. As it turned out he wasn't even ignoring
UN Sanctions, there were no WMD left in Iraq and he said so on national
TV. This has since been backed up by every report on WMD to date.
I never believed Saddam had much of anything left and was even more
suspicous after the USA "edited" the disclosure Saddam had to submit to
the security council before the war even started. The whole thing stinks.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
08 Oct 2004 07:16:16 PM |
|
|
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:FJF9d.36654$jj2.1483018@news20.bellglobal.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:miE9d.35372$jj2.1466227@news20.bellglobal.com...
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces
everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and
behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if
it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly,
according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally
convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He
also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly
and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that since
the end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on either
end of the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions, shooting at our planes.
I still believe that we did the right thing of removing Saddam. I do
think Bush made a mistake though by not waiting a little longer for the
inspections.
Nice try at revision of History. Iraq was not invaded because "Saddam was
stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations...shooting at
our planes". The reason given the world was he had WMD in huge quantities,
poison spraying drones, possibly nuclear weapons and could strike at any
moment.
I understand that, and speaking for myself, no one said he didn't have WMD,
they just said there was no evidence. And that doesn't mean he didn't have
them and hid them or they were transported elsewhere.
I also understand why Bush said we went in there, and if he was wrong..he
was wrong. But I STILL think that getting rid of Saddam was the right thing
to do. And now we are in there, and we must finish the job.
As it turned out he wasn't even ignoring
UN Sanctions,
*****, only 14 resolutions
there were no WMD left in Iraq and he said so on national
TV.
No, there you are wrong. They didn't say there were not any, they said
there was no evidence.
They also said his Mig's were destroyed, and we found some buried.
This has since been backed up by every report on WMD to date.
I never believed Saddam had much of anything left and was even more
suspicous after the USA "edited" the disclosure Saddam had to submit to
the security council before the war even started. The whole thing stinks.
so what do you think we should do now? Let him go, apologize, and pull out
entirely?
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Fritzinger" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
08 Oct 2004 10:21:26 PM |
|
|
In article <qrCdnfS4Z5JEsfrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:FJF9d.36654$jj2.1483018@news20.bellglobal.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:miE9d.35372$jj2.1466227@news20.bellglobal.com...
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces
everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and
behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if
it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly,
according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally
convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He
also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly
and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that since
the end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on either
end of the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions, shooting at our planes.
I still believe that we did the right thing of removing Saddam. I do
think Bush made a mistake though by not waiting a little longer for the
inspections.
Nice try at revision of History. Iraq was not invaded because "Saddam was
stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations...shooting at
our planes". The reason given the world was he had WMD in huge quantities,
poison spraying drones, possibly nuclear weapons and could strike at any
moment.
I understand that, and speaking for myself, no one said he didn't have WMD,
they just said there was no evidence. And that doesn't mean he didn't have
them and hid them or they were transported elsewhere.
Actually, from what I've seen of the ISG report, it *does say* that
Saddam had no WMD. Indeed, it says he hadn't had them since the early
'90s.
I also understand why Bush said we went in there, and if he was wrong..he
was wrong. But I STILL think that getting rid of Saddam was the right thing
to do. And now we are in there, and we must finish the job.
Saddam was a nasty person, and, I hope someday, Iraq will be better for
his being deposed. However, given that the main reason we gave for going
into Iraq have been shown to be false, and, given that there is data
that the administration knew, or at least knew of serious doubts about
their rationales for going into Iraq, I would say we should not have
gone into Iraq when we did. Now that we are there, we do need to finish
the job or else Iraq will be a worse danger than it was with Saddam.
However, the Bushies seem to have screwed up things so badly, I'm not
sure that is possible.
As it turned out he wasn't even ignoring
UN Sanctions,
*****, only 14 resolutions
there were no WMD left in Iraq and he said so on national
TV.
No, there you are wrong. They didn't say there were not any, they said
there was no evidence.
They also said his Mig's were destroyed, and we found some buried.
He said there were no weapons. Kay said there were no weapons.
This has since been backed up by every report on WMD to date.
I never believed Saddam had much of anything left and was even more
suspicous after the USA "edited" the disclosure Saddam had to submit to
the security council before the war even started. The whole thing stinks.
so what do you think we should do now? Let him go, apologize, and pull out
entirely?
Get rid of the idiot who got us into Iraq, and try to find a way to
stabilize the country.
--
Dave Fritzinger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
08 Oct 2004 10:34:10 PM |
|
|
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-7C9791.17212908102004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
In article <qrCdnfS4Z5JEsfrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:FJF9d.36654$jj2.1483018@news20.bellglobal.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:miE9d.35372$jj2.1466227@news20.bellglobal.com...
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces
everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and
behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even
if
it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly,
according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally
convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He
also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly
and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that since
the end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on either
end of the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving
nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions, shooting at our planes.
I still believe that we did the right thing of removing Saddam. I do
think Bush made a mistake though by not waiting a little longer for
the
inspections.
Nice try at revision of History. Iraq was not invaded because "Saddam
was
stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations...shooting
at
our planes". The reason given the world was he had WMD in huge
quantities,
poison spraying drones, possibly nuclear weapons and could strike at
any
moment.
I understand that, and speaking for myself, no one said he didn't have
WMD,
they just said there was no evidence. And that doesn't mean he didn't
have
them and hid them or they were transported elsewhere.
Actually, from what I've seen of the ISG report, it *does say* that
Saddam had no WMD.
No, that isn't what it says at all.
Indeed, it says he hadn't had them since the early
'90s.
Really? Care to explain why so many democrats back in 1998 up to after 2001
were so concerned about his WMD?
Nancy Pelosi
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Tom Daschle
I also understand why Bush said we went in there, and if he was wrong..he
was wrong. But I STILL think that getting rid of Saddam was the right
thing
to do. And now we are in there, and we must finish the job.
Saddam was a nasty person, and, I hope someday, Iraq will be better for
his being deposed. However, given that the main reason we gave for going
into Iraq have been shown to be false, and, given that there is data
that the administration knew, or at least knew of serious doubts about
their rationales for going into Iraq, I would say we should not have
gone into Iraq when we did. Now that we are there, we do need to finish
the job or else Iraq will be a worse danger than it was with Saddam.
However, the Bushies seem to have screwed up things so badly, I'm not
sure that is possible.
As it turned out he wasn't even ignoring
UN Sanctions,
*****, only 14 resolutions
there were no WMD left in Iraq and he said so on national
TV.
No, there you are wrong. They didn't say there were not any, they said
there was no evidence.
They also said his Mig's were destroyed, and we found some buried.
He said there were no weapons. Kay said there were no weapons.
No, that isn't what they said.
This has since been backed up by every report on WMD to date.
I never believed Saddam had much of anything left and was even more
suspicous after the USA "edited" the disclosure Saddam had to submit to
the security council before the war even started. The whole thing
stinks.
so what do you think we should do now? Let him go, apologize, and pull
out
entirely?
Get rid of the idiot who got us into Iraq, and try to find a way to
stabilize the country.
How do we stablize the country?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
09 Oct 2004 01:40:15 PM |
|
|
On 2004-10-08 20:34:10 -0700, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> said:
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-7C9791.17212908102004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
In article <qrCdnfS4Z5JEsfrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:FJF9d.36654$jj2.1483018@news20.bellglobal.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:miE9d.35372$jj2.1466227@news20.bellglobal.com...
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces
everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and
behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if
it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly,
according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally
convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He
also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly
and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that since
the end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on either
end of the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions, shooting at our planes.
I still believe that we did the right thing of removing Saddam. I do
think Bush made a mistake though by not waiting a little longer for the
inspections.
Nice try at revision of History. Iraq was not invaded because "Saddam was
stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations...shooting at
our planes". The reason given the world was he had WMD in huge quantities,
poison spraying drones, possibly nuclear weapons and could strike at any
moment.
I understand that, and speaking for myself, no one said he didn't have WMD,
they just said there was no evidence. And that doesn't mean he didn't have
them and hid them or they were transported elsewhere.
Actually, from what I've seen of the ISG report, it *does say* that
Saddam had no WMD.
No, that isn't what it says at all.
Indeed, it says he hadn't had them since the early
'90s.
Really? Care to explain why so many democrats back in 1998 up to after
2001 were so concerned about his WMD?
Nancy Pelosi
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Tom Daschle
Liar.
So did you support them or did they actually believe something different?
You Republicans are irresponsible. Just look at the situation with you
having an “unplanned child” or when you went bankrupt, or when you
mistreat your children.
I also understand why Bush said we went in there, and if he was wrong..he
was wrong. But I STILL think that getting rid of Saddam was the right thing
to do. And now we are in there, and we must finish the job.
Saddam was a nasty person, and, I hope someday, Iraq will be better for
his being deposed. However, given that the main reason we gave for going
into Iraq have been shown to be false, and, given that there is data
that the administration knew, or at least knew of serious doubts about
their rationales for going into Iraq, I would say we should not have
gone into Iraq when we did. Now that we are there, we do need to finish
the job or else Iraq will be a worse danger than it was with Saddam.
However, the Bushies seem to have screwed up things so badly, I'm not
sure that is possible.
As it turned out he wasn't even ignoring
UN Sanctions,
*****, only 14 resolutions
there were no WMD left in Iraq and he said so on national
TV.
No, there you are wrong. They didn't say there were not any, they said
there was no evidence.
They also said his Mig's were destroyed, and we found some buried.
He said there were no weapons. Kay said there were no weapons.
No, that isn't what they said.
More examples of your poor reading comprehension.
This has since been backed up by every report on WMD to date.
I never believed Saddam had much of anything left and was even more
suspicous after the USA "edited" the disclosure Saddam had to submit to
the security council before the war even started. The whole thing stinks.
so what do you think we should do now? Let him go, apologize, and pull out
entirely?
Get rid of the idiot who got us into Iraq, and try to find a way to
stabilize the country.
How do we stablize the country?
Start by proving we, as a free country, don’t condone the terror Bush
condones and throw his ***** out.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
09 Oct 2004 01:53:39 PM |
|
|
"Elmo" <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:2004100911401550073%efspro@bartoludeledu...
On 2004-10-08 20:34:10 -0700, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> said:
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-7C9791.17212908102004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
In article <qrCdnfS4Z5JEsfrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:FJF9d.36654$jj2.1483018@news20.bellglobal.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:miE9d.35372$jj2.1466227@news20.bellglobal.com...
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces
everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and
behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even
if
it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly,
according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally
convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs.
He
also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted
accordingly
and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that
since
the end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on
either
end of the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving
nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions, shooting at our planes.
I still believe that we did the right thing of removing Saddam. I do
think Bush made a mistake though by not waiting a little longer for
the
inspections.
Nice try at revision of History. Iraq was not invaded because "Saddam
was
stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving
nations...shooting at
our planes". The reason given the world was he had WMD in huge
quantities,
poison spraying drones, possibly nuclear weapons and could strike at
any
moment.
I understand that, and speaking for myself, no one said he didn't have
WMD,
they just said there was no evidence. And that doesn't mean he didn't
have
them and hid them or they were transported elsewhere.
Actually, from what I've seen of the ISG report, it *does say* that
Saddam had no WMD.
No, that isn't what it says at all.
Indeed, it says he hadn't had them since the early
'90s.
Really? Care to explain why so many democrats back in 1998 up to after
2001 were so concerned about his WMD?
Nancy Pelosi
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Tom Daschle
Liar.
So did you support them or did they actually believe something different?
First you call me a liar, then you ask me if I supported them. How can you
ask me if I supported them if you are saying I lied about them?
Damn you are stupid.
I am going to provide the qoutes, you choke on them and run along.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct.
9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e
means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to
deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence
reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority
to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated
the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members
.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will
continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his
continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
.... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is
real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last
visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has
reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological,
chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War
status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is
doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-
range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From
a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford,
& Tom Lantos among others
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while
retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We
cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright,
1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all
weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its
agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and
biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to
build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence
reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet
achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with
the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in
the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past
four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has
continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat
Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use
them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and
all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." --
Bill Clinton in 1998
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons
stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also
given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members,
though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible
events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and
chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he
succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security
landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American
security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in
1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a
warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those
trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of
2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass
destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them
against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our
allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam
Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available
means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already
used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build
more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons,
and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John
Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of
mass destruction." -- ***** Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we
should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to
weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction
has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will
continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham,
December 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority
to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe
that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a
threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates
of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the
means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological
weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors
discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq
was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is
still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to
think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued
biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims
about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq
used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish
population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past,
there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt
that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass
destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the
proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave
importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the
development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to
countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection
process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible
intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still
has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium
perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic
missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these
deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX
substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored
in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains
significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly
reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons
Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the
next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to
enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that
difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of
mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very
real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both
against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop
delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring
these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle
East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards
Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has
systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has
refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of
international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying
time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United
Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are
simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
09 Oct 2004 05:19:28 PM |
|
|
On 2004-10-09 11:53:39 -0700, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> said:
"Elmo" <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:2004100911401550073%efspro@bartoludeledu...
On 2004-10-08 20:34:10 -0700, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> said:
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-7C9791.17212908102004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
In article <qrCdnfS4Z5JEsfrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:FJF9d.36654$jj2.1483018@news20.bellglobal.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:miE9d.35372$jj2.1466227@news20.bellglobal.com...
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces
everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and
behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even if
it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly,
according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally
convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs. He
also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted accordingly
and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that since
the end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on either
end of the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions, shooting at our planes.
I still believe that we did the right thing of removing Saddam. I do
think Bush made a mistake though by not waiting a little longer for the
inspections.
Nice try at revision of History. Iraq was not invaded because "Saddam was
stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving nations...shooting at
our planes". The reason given the world was he had WMD in huge quantities,
poison spraying drones, possibly nuclear weapons and could strike at any
moment.
I understand that, and speaking for myself, no one said he didn't have WMD,
they just said there was no evidence. And that doesn't mean he didn't have
them and hid them or they were transported elsewhere.
Actually, from what I've seen of the ISG report, it *does say* that
Saddam had no WMD.
No, that isn't what it says at all.
Indeed, it says he hadn't had them since the early
'90s.
Really? Care to explain why so many democrats back in 1998 up to after
2001 were so concerned about his WMD?
Nancy Pelosi
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Tom Daschle
Liar.
So did you support them or did they actually believe something different?
First you call me a liar, then you ask me if I supported them. How can
you ask me if I supported them if you are saying I lied about them?
You think that is mutually exclusive? It isn’t.
Damn you are stupid.
How embarrassed you must be.
I am going to provide the qoutes, you choke on them and run along.
<Cut and Paste job snipped>
Do you have a point or are you trying to play more games?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GreyCloud" |
|
| Title: Re: Rational conservatives vs emotional liberals |
10 Oct 2004 01:46:12 PM |
|
|
Osprey wrote:
"Elmo" <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:2004100911401550073%efspro@bartoludeledu...
On 2004-10-08 20:34:10 -0700, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> said:
"David Fritzinger" <dfritzinnospam@mac.com> wrote in message
news:dfritzinnospam-7C9791.17212908102004@orngca-news02.socal.rr.com...
In article <qrCdnfS4Z5JEsfrcRVn-pg@comcast.com>,
"Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:FJF9d.36654$jj2.1483018@news20.bellglobal.com...
Osprey wrote:
"Mike Wilcox" <spamspamspam@montypython.org> wrote in message
news:miE9d.35372$jj2.1466227@news20.bellglobal.com...
Gactimus wrote:
If a man says he has a gun, acts like he has a gun, and convinces
everyone around him he has a gun, and starts waving it around and
behaving recklessly, the police are justified in shooting him (even
if
it turns out later he just had a black bar of soap). Similarly,
according to the Duelfer report, Saddam seems to have intentionally
convinced other countries, and his own generals, that he had WMDs.
He
also convinced much of the U.S. government. If we reacted
accordingly
and he turns out not to have had WMDs, whose fault is that?
The only problem is Saddam hadn't been doing much of any of that
since
the end of the Gulf War, and couldn't get a plane in the air on
either
end of the country, so you argument doesn't hold up.
Saddam was stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving
nations,
ignoring the U.N. sanctions, shooting at our planes.
I still believe that we did the right thing of removing Saddam. I do
think Bush made a mistake though by not waiting a little longer for
the
inspections.
Nice try at revision of History. Iraq was not invaded because "Saddam
was
stealing billions, robbing his own people, decieving
nations...shooting at
our planes". The reason given the world was he had WMD in huge
quantities,
poison spraying drones, possibly nuclear weapons and could strike at
any
moment.
I understand that, and speaking for myself, no one said he didn't have
WMD,
they just said there was no evidence. And that doesn't mean he didn't
have
them and hid them or they were transported elsewhere.
Actually, from what I've seen of the ISG report, it *does say* that
Saddam had no WMD.
No, that isn't what it says at all.
Indeed, it says he hadn't had them since the early
'90s.
Really? Care to explain why so many democrats back in 1998 up to after
2001 were so concerned about his WMD?
Nancy Pelosi
John Kerry
Hillary Clinton
Tom Daschle
Liar.
So did you support them or did they actually believe something different?
First you call me a liar, then you ask me if I supported them. How can you
ask me if I supported them if you are saying I lied about them?
Damn you are stupid.
I am going to provide the qoutes, you choke on them and run along.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to
develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That
is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest
security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to
the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct.
9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he
has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam
continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a
licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten
the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
| | | | | | | | | |
