Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 140 of 230
  1. #121  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Sorry DaT, Hamas cant be be legitimate with "militatry operations" on one hand, while blowing up babies in resturants on the other. You cannot be alittle bit terrorist.
    And therefore Saddam should be "removed from power" for having "ties to terrorists" while George W, and HW hold hands with Prince Bandar, and kiss him on the face.
  2. #122  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    Says who, Hamas? Hamas said that Israel shelled the beach. Israel has denied this. I know you wont believe Israel, but I do over a terrorist organization.

    Sorry DaT, Hamas cant be be legitimate with "militatry operations" on one hand, while blowing up babies in resturants on the other. You cannot be alittle bit terrorist.

    Hamas has also claimed resposibility for rocket fire that slammed into a school in Israel just a few days ago. The Palestinian goverment targeting school children. Ofcourse to you thats fine though.
    Please see above illustrations before taking the role of the martyr.
  3. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #123  
    And therefore Saddam should be "removed from power" for having "ties to terrorists" while George W, and HW hold hands with Prince Bandar, and kiss him on the face.
    I agree, he should go too. Just curious, why defend Saddam? This is a very evil man, who is no better than Hitler. He gassed thousands of his own people, tortured and executed tens of thousands, Oppresed millions of Shiites living in Iraq.

    Maybe another 50 years of useless UN resolutions would have brought down his regime, but not untill he had the opportunity to kill millions more. I for one am glad hes gone.
  4. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #124  
    Please see above illustrations before taking the role of the martyr.
    Have absolutely no idea what you mean. Didnt really think though you would have a resonable reply to my points though.
  5. #125  
    Quote Originally Posted by TomUps
    I agree, he should go too. Just curious, why defend Saddam? This is a very evil man, who is no better than Hitler. He gassed thousands of his own people, tortured and executed tens of thousands, Oppresed millions of Shiites living in Iraq.

    Maybe another 50 years of useless UN resolutions would have brought down his regime, but not untill he had the opportunity to kill millions more. I for one am glad hes gone.
    I am in complete agreement that this was one of the most oppressive regimes on the planet and the sooner it was out of power, the better. And if fairy tales came true, Iraq would be a jeffersonian democracy right now.

    But this is the real world and, hypocrisy aside (the same person calling Hussein evil fought against economic sanctions for chemical weapon use against Iran), things don't happen in a vacuum, the factionalized population of Iraq had to be taken into acct and was not. Playing the evil regime card makes the world wonder why the US doesn't address evil regimes in other parts of the world.

    Nope, that card; For the Good of Humanity and the Iraqi people just doesn't ring true for motive and intent.
  6. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #126  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas
    Completely and utterly unrelated to 9-11 which this admin tried to justify the Iraq invasion. But you keep clinging to that.
    I never said the palestinan terrorist were involved with 9-11, stop adding words to my post. I simply said that they are terrorist, your post sort of indicated that they were not terrorist. The admin used numerous justifications to oust Saddam, some still cling to the one aspect and refuse to look at the big picture.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  7. #127  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    I never said the palestinan terrorist were involved with 9-11, stop adding words to my post. I simply said that they are terrorist, your post sort of indicated that they were not terrorist. The admin used numerous justifications to oust Saddam, some still cling to the one aspect and refuse to look at the big picture.
    I believe my last post does look at the big picture.
  8. #128  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Any chemical munition is considered a WMD.
    The chemicals used to make that claim degraded long ago and are now less hazardous than common household cleaning supplies- conclusion of weapons experts including David Kay, the chief weapons inspector for the US from 2003-4.
    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/...l?mi=D8IDIE300

    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    The military members who became ill, were treated according to the training they recieved, how would the subway riders in NY respond?
    According to Fox news, after the undisabled shell exploded on them, the two soldiers got nauseous but were back at full duty in 2 days. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

    One shell that couldn't keep a couple of troops away from full duty for more than 2 days, and this is your best evidence after all this time combing through Iraq for some type of threat to the US? Its pretty weak if you ask me.
  9. #129  
    i'm so glad that someone on "our side" knew all along the WMDs they had were so impotent. ******.
  10.    #130  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    The chemicals used to make that claim degraded long ago and are now less hazardous than common household cleaning supplies- conclusion of weapons experts including David Kay, the chief weapons inspector for the US from 2003-4.
    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/...l?mi=D8IDIE300


    According to Fox news, after the undisabled shell exploded on them, the two soldiers got nauseous but were back at full duty in 2 days. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

    One shell that couldn't keep a couple of troops away from full duty for more than 2 days, and this is your best evidence after all this time combing through Iraq for some type of threat to the US? Its pretty weak if you ask me.
    All of these points were already covered in posts #59 and #63-#69
  11.    #131  
    Now....back on topic about the documents waiting to be released:

    U.S. overclassifying Iraq papers
    Seattle Post-Intelligencer
    Tuesday, July 11, 2006 Last updated 3:48 p.m. PT

    WASHINGTON -- The government is classifying too many documents confiscated since the 2003 Iraq invasion that might help rewrite the history on Saddam Hussein's rule, the House Intelligence Committee's Republican chairman said Tuesday.

    Intelligence agencies also aren't doing enough to study the repository of information, Rep. Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., told an audience at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

    ----------------

    "The bottom line on the documents is that they give us an insight into Saddam's rule that didn't exist before," Hoekstra said. "I would love to be up here giving you a detailed brief of what the intelligence community has found in the documents. I can't do that."

    After six months of negotiations, Hoekstra secured an agreement with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to have millions of pages of Iraqi documents - most of which are in Arabic - reviewed for public release. Now, they are sitting in a military-run warehouse in Qatar.

    Hoekstra said 4,000 documents - totaling at least 325,000 pages - have been made public, but some 37 percent of those reviewed have been deemed classified. That number is too high to him.

    Carl Kropf, a spokesman to National Intelligence Director John Negroponte, called the government's release of documents during ongoing hostilities "unprecedented."

    ----------------------

    "The bias is toward release," Kropf added.

    Hoekstra believes the intelligence community has abdicated its responsibility to review the confiscated documents as part of a lessons-learned study on the state of Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion. Instead, he said, the government is leaving the work to a "cottage industry" of private sector experts.

    With such a review, Hoekstra suspects new details about the regime's ugly behavior could emerge. He pointed to one 1998 document about a standing order to hide or destroy information on Iraq's weapons to stifle United Nations weapons inspectors.

    FULL STORY: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/nation...Documents.html
    I had no idea that most of these docs in a warehouse in Qatar. I just always assumed that they were brought to Washington of something.

    .
    Last edited by HobbesIsReal; 07/11/2006 at 11:03 PM.
  12.    #132  
    Quote Originally Posted by septimus
    Things seem to be getting a little heated in here - not closing the thread, but please try to steer away from getting too personal as you continue.
    Thank for the friendly warning and not closing the thread!
  13. #133  
    daT, what should be done about the daily Kassam attacks from Gaza?
  14. TomUps's Avatar
    Posts
    22 Posts
    Global Posts
    28 Global Posts
    #134  
    daT, what should be done about the daily Kassam attacks from Gaza?
    Hoovs, its a losing cause. DaT "HATES" all Israelis. Those are his own words, posted in this very forum. He feels attacks on Israelis citizens are justified, while any attack on Palestinians whether civilian or militant is to be condemned. He favors swapping 1 soldier for thousands of Palestinian prisoners (which ofcourse will lead to many more soldiers being taken). He has never posted once against a terrorist attack that killed Israeli children, never posted once about the daily barrage of rockets being fired into Israel, never posted once about any attack from Hezbollah, but he would be the first (or maybe second behind Surur) to post negatively about Israeli doing anything to protect itself.

    Hoovs, asking people like this what Israeli should do will never get you anywhere, because they can't see past their own hate. Now if this gets me banned, so be it. I respect that DaT is entitled to his own opininion. I just don't agree with it.
  15. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #135  
    Quote Originally Posted by cellmatrix
    The chemicals used to make that claim degraded long ago and are now less hazardous than common household cleaning supplies- conclusion of weapons experts including David Kay, the chief weapons inspector for the US from 2003-4.
    http://www.theconservativevoice.com/...l?mi=D8IDIE300


    According to Fox news, after the undisabled shell exploded on them, the two soldiers got nauseous but were back at full duty in 2 days. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120268,00.html

    One shell that couldn't keep a couple of troops away from full duty for more than 2 days, and this is your best evidence after all this time combing through Iraq for some type of threat to the US? Its pretty weak if you ask me.
    Are you really ok with individuals like Saddam maintaining at least 500 weapons that contained chemical agents after he was told by the UN to destroy all chemical grade muntions or are you simply standing by the party line of no WMD in Iraq? Weapons loaded with the chemical agent Sarin and/or Ricin are WMDs. Maybe I see things a little more black and white in terms of laws and requlations than others. When you make the choice to ignore the requirements handed down by a governing body you failed to uphold your end of the bargain. You can discount and write off the chemical munitions that were found and continue to chant Bush lied all day, the fact is the weapons were still in his possesion.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  16. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #136  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    Are you really ok with individuals like Saddam maintaining at least 500 weapons that contained chemical agents after he was told by the UN to destroy all chemical grade muntions or are you simply standing by the party line of no WMD in Iraq? Weapons loaded with the chemical agent Sarin and/or Ricin are WMDs. Maybe I see things a little more black and white in terms of laws and requlations than others. When you make the choice to ignore the requirements handed down by a governing body you failed to uphold your end of the bargain. You can discount and write off the chemical munitions that were found and continue to chant Bush lied all day, the fact is the weapons were still in his possesion.
    So we should invade any country that has Glass Plus or 409 in a munition? Great forgein policy. We have got alot of work cut out for us, we better get started w/ every household in the US.
  17. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #137  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    So we should invade any country that has Glass Plus or 409 in a munition? Great forgein policy. We have got alot of work cut out for us, we better get started w/ every household in the US.
    NRG, that is really a pathetic excuse to use in your approval of Saddam ignoring the UN requirement of destroying all chemical weapons. Do you really think that in, oh say 1998, those weapons were useless? how about 1995, or 93. If they were so safe, why were the UN ispectors prevented from verifying the lack of danger poised by this glass cleaner.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"
  18. #138  
    you don't have to chant Bush lied to undestand what our weapons experts already know: namely that the chemicals in pre-1991 weapons degraded a long time ago and are now no longer a threat. If we do find any evidence of any real chemical weapons manufactured after the gulf war that were an actual threat I would be interested to know, I actually am pretty interested in this subject. I have read the Iraq weapons report from 2004 and I do appreciate reading these posts.

    As far as the question why did we not go into Iraq during the Clinton years when the weapons might have still been active? Well all I can say is the policy of pinning down Sadaam with no fly zones and weapons inspectors really did seem to work. The result was that during the time of this policy, his weapons became useless and he was not able to replace them. So I would say this policy worked.
    Last edited by cellmatrix; 07/12/2006 at 11:05 AM.
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #139  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardio
    NRG, that is really a pathetic excuse to use in your approval of Saddam ignoring the UN requirement of destroying all chemical weapons. Do you really think that in, oh say 1998, those weapons were useless? how about 1995, or 93. If they were so safe, why were the UN ispectors prevented from verifying the lack of danger poised by this glass cleaner.
    If I am not mistaken, the UN inspectors were trying to do just that. Yet, bush kicked them out before the job was done. Nevermind the fact that the UN did not see the need to invade Iraq. Wonder why?
  20. cardio's Avatar
    Posts
    779 Posts
    Global Posts
    787 Global Posts
    #140  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    If I am not mistaken, the UN inspectors were trying to do just that. Yet, bush kicked them out before the job was done. Nevermind the fact that the UN did not see the need to invade Iraq. Wonder why?
    How many years would you give the UN to find the weapons, while Saddam continued to play cat and mouse with the weapons. Does Oil for Food scandel ring a bell, what do you think Saddam was doing with the money that was being sent to him, he was not planting rose gardens I can promise you that.
    "If It Weren't For The United States Military"
    "There Would Be NO United States of America"

Posting Permissions