more ramblings from hypocrite damazinhunk

[Eagler]

Originally posted by senna
Well eagler, looks like you got the ingredients for a perfect war. You woudlnt happen to be anywhere near Iraq when the bullets and bombs start going off will you? Whens the last time you got hurt, remember or even know whats its like to have an arm blown off. Its not your arm, is somebody elses. As a matter of fact, I'm willing to bet you will be glued to a TV set with a cold on in your hand. Too easy to back up that kinda crap.

BTW: Hope to meet you at a con in the future someday.

It'd be a cold ice tea - sry don't drink or smoke or chew

So you are for him NOT letting inspectors do their job?

Or not backing them up when they are refused entry somewhere in Iraq?

Or should we just go give saddam a big hug and welcome him into the world community?

[blur]

Originally posted by straffo
I still don't understand why the US are focused on Irak
...
9/11 was a saoudian attack no ?
Money and men where from Saoudia you know ....

Don’t start asking intelligent questions at this stage in the game!

It seems Saudi Arabia is hands-off for this administration.  We can only imagine what sort of seedy deals go on behind closed doors.

As for Iraq, there are probably many reasons, oil, control of the region, help in the fall elections, Israeli influence, unfinished business from Gulf War, etc. But I think we choose Iraq because we can. The fascist element in this country are cowards and they’re not about to attack a country that can fight back. Do you think we’d attack China? I’m sure they qualify as terrorists under Bush’s guidelines.



"Bush wants to distract attention from his domestic problems. That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that."

 German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin

[senna]

Inspectors Inschmectors, they are really just pawns. Its simply politics. If they can wage a low casualty war, they will, else they wont. Thats what I think. No presidency in this current day and age can afford a large casualty war. The cold war is over and that is ALOT different than the current situation. The stakes are much less and the people barely have the will to fight a real war.

[Dowding (Work)]

Just a FYI - England is a country within in the UK. The UK includes Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland. There is no such thing as the English Army - it's the British Army and includes regiments from all 4 constituent nations.

As for Iraq. Blur is right - it is an easy target, relatively speaking. We know Syria sponsors terrorism and has WMD potential. Half of the unstable states in Africa harbour terrorists. Where is the support for an attack on Yemen, for instance?

[Eagler]

Originally posted by blur


Don’t start asking intelligent questions at this stage in the game!

It seems Saudi Arabia is hands-off for this administration.  We can only imagine what sort of seedy deals go on behind closed doors.

As for Iraq, there are probably many reasons, oil, control of the region, help in the fall elections, Israeli influence, unfinished business from Gulf War, etc. But I think we choose Iraq because we can. The fascist element in this country are cowards and they’re not about to attack a country that can fight back. Do you think we’d attack China? I’m sure they qualify as terrorists under Bush’s guidelines.



"Bush wants to distract attention from his domestic problems. That's a popular method. Even Hitler did that."

 German Justice Minister Herta Daeubler-Gmelin

blur

you have it all wrong, it's all about the grudge his dad has against saddam nothing about National security

[Sikboy]

I like the "it's easy to cry for war when it's not you going off to fight it!" And this may be the case with many folks. But I turned 18 during the Gulf War (Feb 26, just as they were wrapping things up on the ground In Kuwait) and I was about 100 times more supportive of the effort at that point in time, knowing that if there was a drawn out land war, I'd most likely be heading out over there. Maybe it was the bloodlust of youth. Maybe it was a more cut and dry case of "good vs evil" (at least in my mind). I don't know. But my personal experience contradicts the contention that "it's easier to support combat when you aren't going to be the one dying"

-Sikboy

[Kieran]

I'm afraid I can't agree with a contention that states that only veterans have a voice in government or government affairs. I happened to turn 18 at a time when Carter had pretty much immasculated the military, and as far as opportunities for the future were concerned, there weren't a great deal on the horizon that included military involvemnt. So... I wound up in college instead. I don't apologize for that choice, it turned out to be the right one.

[midnight Target]

It turns out thet Daschle was upset not at what the President said, but at the words injected by a newpaper writer.
Dubya said the Senate was not concerned enough with national security, the reporter wrote "the Democratically Controlled Senate".
Just a little misunderstanding amongst friends.

[Kieran]

Unfortunately, that is not an uncommon occurance where the Washington Post is concerned.

[10Bears]

[Eagler]

is that suppose to be dashole in the lower right corner in the last frame of ur news mag 10bears?

no one has answered the question of why the 180 from 89 ....

I thought the radio was bad but watching dashole on the tele this am was too much. Looked like a bad SNL skit. what a joke

and he is the dems "leader"

[aknimitz]

Hmm...I completely agree with Daschle. I cannot stand GW and I completely think he is tryin to politicize the war. Having said that, I also believe Hussein is a serious threat and should be dealt with immediately. I am just not happy with the methods of the President or his VP.

Preach on brother Daschle!!

Nim

[Sandman]

Originally posted by 10Bears

Oh gawd... that's great.

[Jack55]

W's got something for Saddam and the other terrorists, and that's some presidential kick-ass.  He'll probably have some left over for senate wind bags too.  

[wsnpr]

LOL

http://www.sanfranciscothuggirl.com/why_iraq.html