| 17th February 2006 12:17 AM |
|
|
| Brainbell Jangler |
quote:
Maxlugar wrote:
Well, I think she misspoke a little there. There were no offical troops sent but there was plenty of help from Canada, which is her overall point.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Rhodes/1588/
Yes, our northern neighbors gave plenty of help to Americans too smart or too moral to fight in our illegal adventure in Vietnam (and too poorly connected to get into the Texas Air Guard).
"Yes, I'm headed for the nearest northern border/Vancouver may be just my kind of town/'Cuz they don't need the kind of law and order/That tends to keep a good man underground" |
| 17th February 2006 12:27 AM |
|
|
| Lethargy |
quote:
Joey wrote:
" This also goes a long way in explaining why "Republicans" (you do realize that true Republicans no longer exist, right?) control all branches of government. "
What's so sad, yet so funny at the same time, is that amidst all the Bush/Hitler comparisons like this moron's graphic, the fact is that Bush is currently fighting AGAINST (and trying in vain to rally crazed partisan democrats again) the modern day equivalent of the Nazis in every way, namely radical muslims (not all muslims, just the .01% percent of them that think it's okay to blow up school buses and nightclubs filled with innocent people, and to saw innocent people's heads off on TV).
Bush is trying to STOP the modern-day Nazis, and yet the delusional power-desparate left-wingers call HIM a Nazi.
It's just so sad. |
| 17th February 2006 12:38 AM |
|
|
| Lethargy |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
tele! why must you make us so painfully aware of the truth! you make me weep like a baby whose mamma has just taken away the last of the bourbon!
its true...our party has no leadership...those that are in charge are almost "negative" leadership...they sap momentum away from the left and make the right look more palatable...and make the bad guys stronger! that is the only explanation why dubya was able to win the presidency (once)!
and hillary....if she runs it's all over!
by Starbuck]
You're so right, Starbuck! I send you a virtual hug.
I'm a Republican voter for the last ten years, but a reluctant one. The Democratic Party would be a natural place for me, except for the absolutely dispicable behavior of the modern day Democrats who are almost literally the opposite of the Democrats of the 1950's through the 1980's. They have become delusionally power hungry, to the point where they think Bush is the enemy, not radical muslim terrorists. Perhaps when NYC or San Francisco is nuked off the face of the Earth by these people, the modern day Democrats (Hillary, Schumer, Boxer, etc.) will permit themselves to acknowledge that Republicans are not the most important enemy they have. |
| 17th February 2006 01:27 AM |
|
|
| Starbuck |
lethargy!
a few comments on the bush/nazism comparison. no, of course bush isn't a nazi...not even close. the comparison is only for dramatic effect and nothing else.
that being said, i will say that comparison always makes me giggle!
seriously, the bush white house is the most conservative white house i can think of in recent memory. he really does make reagan look like jimmy carter in so many ways. wolfowitz and cheney and the lot of those men are just plain scary.
you say he's trying to make the world safe from muslim extremists, and i think he thinks that is precisely what he is doing. but in reality he is doing the opposite. the world is much worse off today than it was before .... truth is, bush never really had a grasp on how people lived in other walks of life and in other countries all over the world before he became president...this has kept him from being able to think like a citizen of the earth. he's always been around rich white guys and that is all he knows. i think i read somewhere that bush actually only left the country a couple of times before he became president. whether or not this is true i don't know, but if it is that is the main reason why he sees life through rich man's glasses.
someone, whether it be scott mclellan, riffy, maxy, condi, tele or cheney....someone still has to explain to me the following conundrums:
1. we invaded iraq to neutralize the WMDs, and there were none.
2. we invaded iraq because of their supposed connection ot al quaeda and sept 11th, but in reality there has never been a connection between saddam and sept 11th or al quaeda. meanwhile, the fuck stain who carried out that attack is still at large.
3. saddam was evil. sure. i'll give you that. but there are tons of evil dictators in the world. we can't be the world police.
someone! PLEASE EXPLAIN!!!!
[Edited by Starbuck] |
| 17th February 2006 02:19 AM |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
quote:
Starbuck wrote:
seriously, the bush white house is the most conservative white house i can think of in recent memory.
You insult all conservatives when you refer to that big government retard as one. He's George Walker Bush III -devoid of political thought or ideaology - a classic fathead if there ever was one - him and his idiotic following. |
| 17th February 2006 02:30 AM |
|
|
| Bloozehound |
howdy moondog |
| 17th February 2006 09:06 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
Lethargy wrote:
You're so right, Starbuck! I send you a virtual hug.
I'm a Republican voter for the last ten years, but a reluctant one. The Democratic Party would be a natural place for me, except for the absolutely dispicable behavior of the modern day Democrats who are almost literally the opposite of the Democrats of the 1950's through the 1980's. They have become delusionally power hungry, to the point where they think Bush is the enemy, not radical muslim terrorists. Perhaps when NYC or San Francisco is nuked off the face of the Earth by these people, the modern day Democrats (Hillary, Schumer, Boxer, etc.) will permit themselves to acknowledge that Republicans are not the most important enemy they have.
I'm sorry but...bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha. The only thing missing from today's Democrats than those from the 50's to the 80's is the ability to kick the Republicans in the balls. This country has faced worse "enemies" than these "terrorists" and have been a bigger threat to the future of the country, too.
You wanna talk about power hungry? Look no further than your beloved leader and his kool aid chugging minions. Illegal spying, holding people without charge or trials, etc., etc. Do you want to know why he hasn't vetoed any bills? It's because he reserves the right to ignore carrying out the provisions of a bill just after he signs it. These people are doing more to dismantle the Constitution than any outside force. |
| 17th February 2006 11:15 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
" Bush is trying to STOP the modern-day Nazis, and yet the delusional power-desparate left-wingers call HIM a Nazi.
It's just so sad. "
Agreed !!!!!
|
|
|
V
" Everything old is new again Ronnie ! "
J. " Spiro " Agnew ! ®
................................................
[ Edited by Fiji Joe ]
[Edited by Joey] |
| 17th February 2006 11:27 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
SB wrote
"1. we invaded iraq to neutralize the WMDs, and there were none.
2. we invaded iraq because of their supposed connection ot al quaeda and sept 11th, but in reality there has never been a connection between saddam and sept 11th or al quaeda."
What do you make of the recent statements by Hussein's #2 guy from the Iraqi airforce that (1) Iraq moved its WMDs to Syria (this corroborating the statements by another top Iraqi general last year as well as Israeli intelligence) and (2) that Hussein did indeed fund and aid bin Laden.
For the past couple of years, the "mainstream" news and dems have treated as fact that Iraq had no more WMDs (I say more because he certainly had them at one time).
Now there is mounting evidence from people within Hussein's inner circle that the WMDs ended up in Syria.
Should we not clutter the argument with facts?
I'm just curious?
|
| 17th February 2006 12:07 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
SB wrote
"1. we invaded iraq to neutralize the WMDs, and there were none.
2. we invaded iraq because of their supposed connection ot al quaeda and sept 11th, but in reality there has never been a connection between saddam and sept 11th or al quaeda."
What do you make of the recent statements by Hussein's #2 guy from the Iraqi airforce that (1) Iraq moved its WMDs to Syria (this corroborating the statements by another top Iraqi general last year as well as Israeli intelligence) and (2) that Hussein did indeed fund and aid bin Laden.
For the past couple of years, the "mainstream" news and dems have treated as fact that Iraq had no more WMDs (I say more because he certainly had them at one time).
Now there is mounting evidence from people within Hussein's inner circle that the WMDs ended up in Syria.
Should we not clutter the argument with facts?
I'm just curious?
Nanky ?!?!
|
| 17th February 2006 01:16 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
wow!
Joey?
[Edited by nankerphelge] |
| 17th February 2006 02:23 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
wow!
Joey?
[Edited by nankerphelge]
Nanky ............... !!!!!!!!!
YOU MAKE JOEY LAUGH LIKE HELL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bless You |
| 17th February 2006 02:29 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
SB wrote
"1. we invaded iraq to neutralize the WMDs, and there were none.
2. we invaded iraq because of their supposed connection ot al quaeda and sept 11th, but in reality there has never been a connection between saddam and sept 11th or al quaeda."
What do you make of the recent statements by Hussein's #2 guy from the Iraqi airforce that (1) Iraq moved its WMDs to Syria (this corroborating the statements by another top Iraqi general last year as well as Israeli intelligence) and (2) that Hussein did indeed fund and aid bin Laden.
For the past couple of years, the "mainstream" news and dems have treated as fact that Iraq had no more WMDs (I say more because he certainly had them at one time).
Now there is mounting evidence from people within Hussein's inner circle that the WMDs ended up in Syria.
Should we not clutter the argument with facts?
I'm just curious?
Absolutely Zero evidence that WMD's went to Syria. Absolutely Zero evidence of a connection between AQ (who?) and Iraq. Gotta love freepers, they just don't quit.
Sada is another Chalabi figure but without the criminal background who was a) not personally involved with this so-called move of WMD b) #2 (the Republicans sure love to label everyone as #2, don't they?). |
| 17th February 2006 03:47 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
No evidence other than the statements of two "high ranking" (does that work for you) Iraqis that apparently knew of the move.
Maybe you don't consider people with personal knowledge "evidence" - but I sure think it deserves more than the back of your left hand!
And don't forget David Kay -- he found evidence of a move as well.
As did out satellite intel which showed heavy truck traffic into Syria right before the war.
Oh and the Mossad -- those idiots thought so too.
By the way, were you involved at all -- do YOU know what really happened.
Or would you prefer we don't cloud the issue with facts?
[Edited by nankerphelge] |
| 17th February 2006 03:53 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
" BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE "
" G. Gordon Liddy and his son, Jim, came into the studio to talk about their pasts as well as some current topics. Howard began the conversation by pointing out that Gordon once tried to have a reporter, Jack Anderson, who was badmouthing President Nixon at the time, assassinated. Gordon acknowledged that he had had discussions about the hit and that the action was necessary because, to him, Jack was “a threat to national security.” Gordon then detailed some of the ways he planned on taking out Jack, including putting LSD on his steering wheel, placing one cyanide pill in his aspirin bottle and arranging for a car accident. However, Gordon noted that, for various reasons, each of his ideas was turned down.
WOMEN WHO LOVE GUNS
After Gordon mentioned that he and his wife will soon be celebrating their 50th wedding anniversary, Howard brought up the women and guns calendars Gordon puts out each year. Howard noted that his major problem with the calendars is that most of the women were “train wrecks.” However, even though Howard furthered his point by saying that the women in the calendars have flabby stomachs and men’s faces, Gordon insisted that he finds the models, who are actually culled from photos sent in by his fan base, attractive. Gordon went on to say that his favorite handgun is the revolver, with the .44 special cartridge coming in second.
MUM’S THE WORD
Because the title of Gordon’s new book is, “Fight Back: Tackling Terrorism, Liddy Style,” Howard asked him how he recommends battling the threat. Gordon responded that he knows some of the details as to how the government is going to do it, but he claimed the information is classified. When Robin questioned whether or not Gordon actually has access to such knowledge, Jim replied that such information is, in fact, out there. In fact, Jim said that, as a Navy Seal, he earned medals that he couldn’t even discuss with his father and that he couldn’t tell his them his whereabouts when he contacted them while serving. "
http://www.howardstern.com/flt/rd/rundown_021606.html
|
| 17th February 2006 04:30 PM |
|
|
| FPM C10 |
Have a good weekend, young Joey! Enjoy "President's Day"! |
| 17th February 2006 05:10 PM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
FPM C10 wrote:
Have a good weekend, young Joey! Enjoy "President's Day"!
Bless You Fleabit ...my C10 Brother .
Have a nice weekend yourself ( Your young Joey has this Monday off work )
*** It's Almost PUB TIME ***
|
| 17th February 2006 05:41 PM |
|
|
| Starbuck |
nanky!
a few questions for you...
first off, isn't it possible that these "saddam inner circle guys" who are saying iraq shipped WMDs to syria are saying that to provoke a reaction? perhaps to get the US to invade syria even? what do they have to loose? perhaps a US invasion of another ME country would bring together the muslim world more so than it has and cement world public opinion against the us.... perhaps they are saying it to be assholes and they know W will get his tightie whities in a bundle over it.... in any case, do you seriously think they are on the level?
and these trucks that supposedly carried the WMDs to syria before the war...the ones that US intelligence picked up....are they the same trucks that cheney and his cronies said were labs on wheels that turned out to be moving vans full of dirty laundry?
connections to al quaeda? osama dested saddam!
 |
| 18th February 2006 12:27 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
No evidence other than the statements of two "high ranking" (does that work for you) Iraqis that apparently knew of the move.
Maybe you don't consider people with personal knowledge "evidence" - but I sure think it deserves more than the back of your left hand!
And don't forget David Kay -- he found evidence of a move as well.
As did out satellite intel which showed heavy truck traffic into Syria right before the war.
Oh and the Mossad -- those idiots thought so too.
By the way, were you involved at all -- do YOU know what really happened.
Or would you prefer we don't cloud the issue with facts?
[Edited by nankerphelge]
Your "high ranking officials" (your #2 air force guy was actually retired from the air force in 1986 and had been imprisoned by Saddam and now works for some Christian outreach group in Oklahoma but that's close enough, right?) have no personal 1st hand knowledge of such a move. They only "heard" it from a couple of guys who they refuse to name. No personal involvement whatsoever. Hearsay (especially from unknown people) isn't admissable in court but it's good enough for WMD's?
David Kay found no such "evidence" of any such move. He, too, heard it from others. Anyways he couldn't have thought these people were telling the truth when he didn't believe Iraq had any WMD's anyways:
“Let me begin by saying, we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here. I believe that the effort that has been directed to this point has been sufficiently intense that it is highly unlikely that there were large stockpiles of deployed militarized chemical and biological weapons there,” Kay said in his first public appearance on Capitol Hill since stepping down last week. Kay, who had spent six months searching for WMDs in Iraq, told the committee that it is “important to acknowledge failure”. “I must say, my personal view, and it’s purely personal, is that in this case you will finally determine that it is going to take an outside inquiry, both to do it and to give yourself and the American people the confidence that you have done it.”
"Satellite intel"? Was this the same satellite intel that showed the "mobile weapons labs" that turned out to be bookmobiles that Powell was ruined by? Please.
Mossad? Please again. If there was anything to the Mossad claims, a) you wouldn't have heard if from Mossad and b) what would have kept Bush from going into Syria to get the stuff? International law? Surely you jest. (and no, I didn't call you shirley  )
My tin foil hat is too busy picking up signals from stolen elections to pick up any more of the "evidence" from the Bakaa Valley. But hey, let's rock! |
| 20th February 2006 11:57 AM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Actually, hearsay is often allowed into evidence -- so legally, you are incorrect.
But the more important in my mind isn't whether the information from Sada is admissible in a court of law, but whether the information that he obtained was correct or not. You state that Sada did not identify the two people that gave Sada the information -- but in his book he states that the sources of the information were two pilots that flew some of the materials into Syria.
You apparently poo poo all satellite intel based on some that was incorrect. To me, that shows your bias and lack of understanding. No less than three separate intelligence agencies have confirmed that a large number of trucks entered Syria from Iraq in the weeks leading up to the US invasion of Iraq.
Even Duelfer filed an addendum to his original report stating that there was significant intelligence that suggested that Syria may have received such WMDs, and that his group was unable to deny the possibility.
I don't claim, as you do, to have all the answers.
But I do find it hard to believe that with such smoke, no one seems to care if there is a fire. As I said, maybe you don't want to muddy up your own beliefs with any contrary facts -- god forbid you were wrong, that there really were WMDs in Iraq, and that such WMDs still exist.
|
| 20th February 2006 01:18 PM |
|
|
| Ten Thousand Motels |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
No less than three separate intelligence agencies have confirmed that a large number of trucks entered Syria from Iraq in the weeks leading up to the US invasion of Iraq.
What were the trucks carrying? Poison tipped arrows, slingshots? A flu infected chicken or two? |
| 20th February 2006 01:56 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Very funny
you should take that show on the road |
| 21st February 2006 11:53 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
Actually, hearsay is often allowed into evidence -- so legally, you are incorrect.
But the more important in my mind isn't whether the information from Sada is admissible in a court of law, but whether the information that he obtained was correct or not. You state that Sada did not identify the two people that gave Sada the information -- but in his book he states that the sources of the information were two pilots that flew some of the materials into Syria.
You apparently poo poo all satellite intel based on some that was incorrect. To me, that shows your bias and lack of understanding. No less than three separate intelligence agencies have confirmed that a large number of trucks entered Syria from Iraq in the weeks leading up to the US invasion of Iraq.
Even Duelfer filed an addendum to his original report stating that there was significant intelligence that suggested that Syria may have received such WMDs, and that his group was unable to deny the possibility.
I don't claim, as you do, to have all the answers.
But I do find it hard to believe that with such smoke, no one seems to care if there is a fire. As I said, maybe you don't want to muddy up your own beliefs with any contrary facts -- god forbid you were wrong, that there really were WMDs in Iraq, and that such WMDs still exist.
Please show me where I claimed to have all the answers. I have merely suggested that there is no proof that this so-called information obtained from anonymous second hand sources is true. All and I mean ALL of the "evidence" is based on rumor or inuendo. Who are these "pilots" he claims to know? Who is Sada and what is his agenda. We now know how reliable Chalabi was and what his and the neocons' agenda was. There's even been talk that the types of planes they claim to have flown haven't existed in Iraq since the end of Gulf I. As far as the satellite images go, you'll have to excuse my being suspicious. These people do have a bit of history of sexing up the "evidence" to fit their agenda (British intelligence). But then again, the official US position is that nothing was moved into Syria.
If you just want to play a game of what ifs, could bes and maybes, how about this one? Did you hear how both the 2000 and 2004 elections were rigged? Plenty of "evidence" there, as well. |
| 21st February 2006 12:11 PM |
|
|
| nankerphelge |
Whatever.
You clearly believe that there were no WMDs and short of one landing in your lap, I doubt anyone could ever provide the level of "proof" you would need to change your mind.
And that's fine -- as I said, maybe you don't care to know because it would muss up your view things.
|
| 21st February 2006 12:21 PM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
nankerphelge wrote:
Whatever.
You clearly believe that there were no WMDs and short of one landing in your lap, I doubt anyone could ever provide the level of "proof" you would need to change your mind.
And that's fine -- as I said, maybe you don't care to know because it would muss up your view things.
Whatever. I'd care to know which is why I'd like to see a little more than a couple of "he said" comments before I jumped to conclusions. But that would just muss up your view of things. Carry on. |
| 22nd February 2006 10:08 AM |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
Saddam had admitted to having WMD and promised to get rid of them. The Gulf War cease fire terms required him to prove he destroyed them. They did not require the UN to prove he still had them. This is important to grasp.
His sons in laws defected and spilled the beans circa '95 that the WMD programs were going strong regardless of the UN inspections. Saddam was forced to show a much more detailed view of the WMD he had. Said sons in laws were lured back to Iraq and killed. They been bad, bad boys!
In the run up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, Saddam could not provide proof he destroyed anything. In fact even Hans Blix laughed in their faces when he was given documentation.
Hey look! Some anonymous second hand sources!
Amazing some people give a man that would do this the benefit of doubt on WMD. |
| 22nd February 2006 10:33 AM |
|
|
| telecaster |
Maxy!
Isn't it funny the socialists on this board give Saddam the
benefit of the doubt?
He started 4 wars, killed more Muslims than anyone in history, created the worst enviornmental disaster in the history of mankind, launced WMD's (SCUDS) into 5 neighboring countries who he was not at war with, and violated 17 UN SECURITY COUNCIL resolutions and violated the 1991 Cease Fire with the US of America after firing 500 missiles at our planes that had the right to patrol the no fire zone
Yet, the socialists and libs and lefties on this board think Saddam was a good guy, and defend him
Funny stuff
|
| 22nd February 2006 10:37 AM |
|
|
| bob kidrock ritchie |
"think Saddam was a good guy"
History may tell us that, compared to some of his neighbors, he might have been. |
| 22nd February 2006 11:15 AM |
|
|
| Joey |
quote:
bob kidrock ritchie wrote:
"think Saddam was a good guy"
Was Iraq as bad as it was because of Saddam ?!?!?! ....... or was Saddam as bad as he was because of Iraq ?!?!
Discuss ..........................
.......................................................
[Edited by Joey] |
| 22nd February 2006 11:19 AM |
|
|
| rasputin56 |
quote:
telecaster wrote:
Maxy!
Isn't it funny the socialists on this board give Saddam the
benefit of the doubt?
He started 4 wars, killed more Muslims than anyone in history, created the worst enviornmental disaster in the history of mankind, launced WMD's (SCUDS) into 5 neighboring countries who he was not at war with, and violated 17 UN SECURITY COUNCIL resolutions and violated the 1991 Cease Fire with the US of America after firing 500 missiles at our planes that had the right to patrol the no fire zone
Yet, the socialists and libs and lefties on this board think Saddam was a good guy, and defend him
Funny stuff
Defend him? The man is scum but was bringing him down worth 2000+ American lives and the tens of thousands of US servicement and women who have been injured in this debacle? Even as late as 2002, Bush administration officials (Powell and Rummie) had declared that Saddam was effectively contained and was little to no threat. The brilliant part of the whole thing is how W. suckered all the right wingnut chicken hawks into actually believing he was a threat to anyone outside his extremely limited sphere of influence so he could satisfy his desire to be better than daddy.
Three words: Osama Bin Laden |
