Author Topic: Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?  (Read 1747 times)

Offline Grizzly

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #60 on: April 18, 2004, 10:49:11 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
In all seriousness if these rantings about syria had any bit of truth to them it would be all over the mainstream media.


I am aware of all these reports because I heard about them in the mainstream news. I suppose there isn't much more they can say about it until something more develops.

grizzly

Offline -dead-

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #61 on: April 18, 2004, 12:41:51 PM »


Clutch away. ;)
“The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” --  Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, June 5, 2006.

Offline Grizzly

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #62 on: April 18, 2004, 04:10:25 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Airhead
As long as your defination of a "liberal" is a person who hates America and wants to see her defeated and put into her place then being called a "liberal"is offensive.


Well, I can see how one might be offended if that was the definition of a liberal.

grizzly

storch

  • Guest
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #63 on: April 18, 2004, 04:13:30 PM »
Yes, of course being a liberal is equated with hating America.  afterall what has been demonstrated by liberals for the last century an a half?

Offline NUKE

  • Persona Non Grata
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8599
      • Arizona Greens
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #64 on: April 18, 2004, 04:23:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
Yes, of course being a liberal is equated with hating America.  afterall what has been demonstrated by liberals for the last century an a half?


raising taxes and gutting the military?

storch

  • Guest
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #65 on: April 18, 2004, 04:34:34 PM »
The tip of the iceburg nuke, those are the hor d'ouerves.  I was hoping for an anti, er liberal responder.

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #66 on: April 18, 2004, 04:37:49 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by NUKE
raising taxes and gutting the military?


I was under the impression that the military in the US was a sacred cow.  No one will touch military funding because if they do, *bam* unelectable.

Wasn't even Gore going to increase military spending?

Offline Thrawn

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6972
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #67 on: April 18, 2004, 04:43:31 PM »
Post-Cold War Defense Spending Cuts: A Bipartisan Decision
 
Steven Kosiak & Elizabeth Heeter
Published 08/31/2000
Highlight  

The question of who is responsible for the substantial reductions in defense spending that occurred in the 1990s has arisen as an issue in the 2000 presidential campaign. A strong case can be made that these cuts were an appropriate response to the end of the Cold War and efforts to bring the federal deficit under control. But, more importantly, whatever the merits of the defense drawdown of the 1990s, one thing is clear: the decision to cut the defense budget, and to do so relatively deeply, was very much a bipartisan decision. Among other things, CSBA finds that:


- The post-Cold War decline in defense spending began during the Bush Administration.

- There is almost no difference between the level of funding proposed for defense by President Bush in his last fiscal year (FY) 1994-99 budget plan and the level of funding actually provided for defense over this six-year period under the Clinton Administration. Both Bush planned funding and actual funding amounted to $1.72 trillion (in FY 2001 dollars).

- Congressional add-ons since 1995, when the Republican Party gained control of both houses, account for only about 3 percent of the defense topline of the past six years.

- Not only was the drawdown of the 1990s clearly a bipartisan affair, the best available evidence suggests that Democrats and Republicans are still remarkably close in terms of their support for defense spending. Under the latest Clinton Administration plan, funding for defense is projected to remain essentially flat in real (inflation-adjusted) terms through fiscal year (FY) 2005. The latest Congressional Budget Resolution (CBR) would provide only about one-third of 1 percent more over this period. In reality, the effectiveness with which the Department of Defense (DoD) is able to address US security challenges in the future is likely to depend much more on how wisely DoD spends than how much it spends.

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.htm

Offline Airhead

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3369
      • http://www.ouchytheclown.com
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #68 on: April 19, 2004, 10:18:34 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by storch
Yes, of course being a liberal is equated with hating America.  afterall what has been demonstrated by liberals for the last century an a half?


Let's start with labor. Liberals are responsible for abolishing child labor, sweatshops, maintaining safe working conditions, establishing a 40 hour work week, minimum wages, right to organize...

How bout civil rights? Liberals are responsible for desegrating our schools, getting African Americans the right to vote, ending discrimination in housing sales, getting women the right to vote (sorry Lazs), ending discrimination in everything from where you sat on a bus to what water fountain you used...

In addition it's the Liberals who got the US out of the Viet Nam fiasco and it's the Liberals who urged avoidance of getting into another Viet Nam in Iraq.

I could go on and on but I'm AFK for the day and I'm running late. My point is that there's nothing to be ashamed of in being a liberal; indeed, many liberal accomplishments are  something to be proud of.

I'll be back this evening and maybe I'll get an answer to THIS question- Just what have the Conservatives done for us?

Offline StabbyTheIcePic

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 566
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #69 on: April 19, 2004, 10:22:38 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Airhead
Let's start with labor. Liberals are responsible for abolishing child labor, sweatshops, maintaining safe working conditions, establishing a 40 hour work week, minimum wages, right to organize...

How bout civil rights? Liberals are responsible for desegrating our schools, getting African Americans the right to vote, ending discrimination in housing sales, getting women the right to vote (sorry Lazs), ending discrimination in everything from where you sat on a bus to what water fountain you used...

In addition it's the Liberals who got the US out of the Viet Nam fiasco and it's the Liberals who urged avoidance of getting into another Viet Nam in Iraq.

I could go on and on but I'm AFK for the day and I'm running late. My point is that there's nothing to be ashamed of in being a liberal; indeed, many liberal accomplishments are  something to be proud of.

I'll be back this evening and maybe I'll get an answer to THIS question- Just what have the Conservatives done for us?


Dont forget FDR.

Offline AKIron

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13294
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #70 on: April 19, 2004, 11:14:04 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Airhead
LOL It's not what you say, it's more how you say it. As long as your defination of a "liberal" is a person who hates America and wants to see her defeated and put into her place then being called a "liberal"is offensive, not embarassing. It would be like if I called you a fascist- its only purpose is to deteroriate a discussion into a name calling flamefest.


I must admit, it's difficult to say that word without feeling at least a bit of revulsion. But hey, I'm a tolerant guy, I can say Communist too.
Here we put salt on Margaritas, not sidewalks.

Offline Grizzly

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 399
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #71 on: April 19, 2004, 12:55:21 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Airhead
I could go on and on but I'm AFK for the day and I'm running late. My point is that there's nothing to be ashamed of in being a liberal; indeed, many liberal accomplishments are  something to be proud of.


Don't confuse liberals with democrats, nor with the common definition of a liberal. The american political liberal believes that he has all of the true answers. History, reality, and constitutional limitations are minor inconveniences to the liberal agenda. These can be simply altered, spun, or reinterpreted to suit the objective. Those who do not wish to follow the liberal doctrine are denigrated as some sort of anti-social, barbaric or phobic enemy of all that is good for mankind. A liberal believes people cannot be trusted to decide their own fate, thus must become cookie cutter drones stripped of all individuality and self sufficiency. The liberal ends justify any means necessary. Most liberals are democrats because socialism more easily fits their philosophy, but a liberal can be a republican also.

grizzly

storch

  • Guest
Some of Saddam's WMD in Syria?
« Reply #72 on: April 19, 2004, 02:10:41 PM »
Free rose colored glasses, come get your free rose colored glasses.  Johnson should have been tried as a traitor for his policies in vietnam, FDR mortgaged us to this very day and handed over all of eastern europe to his pal uncle joe.  we are still paying dearly for the nutcase social experimentation that was the 60's.  the decline of the family therefore the moral foundation of the nation is being brought about by nutcase liberal ideas, abortion now homosexual marriages.  liberals will not stop until they totally destroy our culture then some outsider can come and shoot us.  and the band plays on.  Airhead is an apt description at least you appear honest in some assesments.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2004, 02:20:00 PM by storch »