Turning The Tables George Galloway

[NUKE]

Originally posted by SkyRock

Originally posted by Steve

The American people were told that Saddam was a threat because of stockpiled weapons of mass destruction.  I think the idea of ousting Saddam would have never been taken seriously without the evidence of "weapons of mass destruction", and the "grave threat to America" slogan campaigns that were crammed down our throat like there was a race to go to war.   [/B]

Anyone who doesn't think Saddam was a threat is just living in fairy-land.

Bin Ladden was/is a threat and he does not have any known WMD...... all it takes is the money and the desire, both of which Saddam had, Get it?

Saddam was in charge of a country known to have had WMD, known to hate America, known to have used WMD, known to have invaded Kuwait, known to be in violation of the cease fire agreement, known to have attempted to assisinate President Bush, known to have NEVER accounted for tons of VX nerve gas.....and on and on. Does it really need to be spelled out for you people?

Rush to war my ass. 14 years of ignored UN resolutions.

GWB placed forces on the ground, that's the ONLY reason why inspectors were allowed back into Iraq. Still Saddam did not comply. Do you think we should be expected to spend all the time and money assebling a huge army near Iraq every few years just to watch Saddam?

Most of the world believed that Saddam had WMD. We did the right thing at the exact right time.

[Gixer]

Originally posted by lazs2
gixer said....

"I have heard lot's of tourists over the year say they were jealous of this or that aspect of America or it's law's or lifestyle etc... lazs

Silly me I should of said Happy Holidaying Tourists aside. Just for the really stupid naive Americans out there. Of course they are going to say, nice weather,nice scenery,good shopping, we are so jealous of your fun parks,resturants,casinos,life style,gun ranges.  They are TOURISTS.  




...-Gixer

[Gixer]

Originally posted by NUKE
Anyone who doesn't think Saddam was a threat is just living in fairy-land.

Saddam was in charge of a country known to have had WMD, known to hate America, known to have used WMD, known to have invaded Kuwait, known to be in violation of the cease fire agreement, known to have attempted to assisinate President Bush, known to have NEVER accounted for tons of VX nerve gas.....and on and on. Does it really need to be spelled out for you people?

Yes Nuke it does,

Because if your going on all the above then why wasn't this guy taken out first as he's far bigger threat to the US and the region the Sadam ever was or with sanctions ever capapble of.

Your the one that seems to need it spelled out.




...-Gixer

[NUKE]

Originally posted by Gixer
Yes Nuke it does,

Because if your going on all the above then why wasn't this guy taken out first as he's far bigger threat to the US and the region the Sadam ever was or with sanctions ever capapble of.

Your the one that seems to need it spelled out.


...-Gixer

Sorry, I don't know what North Korea has to do with Iraq. And how exactly do you know that NK is a threat to the US?

The UN doesn't seem to have any resolutions requiring NK to give up any of it's weapons.

On the other hand, Iraq invaded Kuwait, was kicked out and agreed to a cease fire. They were required to account for all of it's WMD and destroy all banned weapons, neither of which they did. But I guess it's just all about oil regardless of any other known factors leading up to the US military even being there in the first place.

Just ignore everything Iraq has done, then say the war was all about the oil. Like I said, simpletons.

[Steve]

Cough Cough, 9/11, cough cough, failure to capture Osama, cough cough, Someone ran out of targets in Afghanistan.

OK, then you are saying oil wasn't the sole reason.

[NUKE]

It's all about the oil, regardless of anything Iraq did. In the simpleton's brain, he was told it's about oil because the US is evil and there is nothing that's going to change the simpleton's simple view.

Don't bother asking for any evidence that the US is getting any oil out of the deal. Heck, the US is only spending billions of dollars so we can pay higher oil prices. Makes perfect sense.....invade Iraq, spend billions and drive the cost of oil up for Americans. It was the perfect crime!

I still can't get over how much oil we got from Kuwait and Iraq since the first war....it's just mind boggling. And we didn't even have to spend more than a few billion dollars for all that oil. What a deal!

Nevermind whatever Iraq's role might have been in their own demise, because it's just about oil and the US.

[john9001]

gixer, NZ is closer to North Korea than the USA, why dosen't the mighty NZ take care of NK?

[Steve]

gixer, NZ is closer to North Korea than the USA, why dosen't the mighty NZ take care of NK?

[Gixer]

Originally posted by john9001
gixer, NZ is closer to North Korea than the USA, why dosen't the mighty NZ take care of NK?

Well we all know Americans aren't the best when it comes to geography but  that comment is hilarious.

ZKPY is Pyongyang International. So think of a ICBM taking off instead of a 747.

ZKPY-NZAA (Auckland,NZ)  5320 nm

ZKPY-KLAX    5580  nm

ZKPY-KSFO   4985   nm

ZXPY-PANC   3380   nm


So unless you don't consider Alaska,San Francisco or pretty much most of the NW of the US as part of the USA. Then how about the Mighty USA do something about it! As actually you are closer!  


...-Gixer

[Silat]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
God is a US taxpayer?

Hmmm maybe he is going to pay for the war too?

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Steve
OK, then you are saying oil wasn't the sole reason.

Yep, but it was a factor.

[Steve]

Yep, but it was a factor.

I agree.
 I see nothing wrong w/ a country looking out for its best interest.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Steve
I agree.
 I see nothing wrong w/ a country looking out for its best interest.

So how do feel if china moves on Taiwan?

[Nash]

Originally posted by Steve
I agree.
 I see nothing wrong w/ a country looking out for its best interest.

huh?

You see nothing wrong with a country doing what it wants wrt that country's best interest? Was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait okay, then?

Or are there varying degrees as to what a country can do? As in, it's okay to do this, but not okay to do that? If so, what you said all of a sudden means very little. It becomes "I see nothing wrong w/ a country looking out for its best interest" as long as certain criteria are met.

You don't say what the criteria is, so either anything goes, or it's a meaningless thing to say. It didn't even hint at sounding enlightened.

So I'll see your "I see nothing wrong w/ a country looking out for its best interest." and raise you a polka dot poodle.

[Hangtime]

I'll see the polka dot poodle and raise yah a duck with a stretched rectum.