IRAQ THREAD originaly "Seems at least one Brit agrees with me....er us."

[Rebel46_99]

CollegeBoy

You know what's amazing CollegeBOY?

I know several people like you. You're one of those people that, even if the truth and facts of the matter were provided in still photos, multiple eye-witness accounts, video or even real-time TV and signed by The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost and your parents, it still couldn't be true because YOU say it isn't.

I have a 23 y/o son who is graduating after six years at the Univ. of Missouri-St. Louis. I thank God that he's not as screwed up as you are. (I ALMOST used a ban-incurring word)

Do us all a favor and take your Socialist bull crap to a board meant for these types of discussions.

[joeyjoe367]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


Afraid, I guess Bush did his job. And I am sorry but that one statement sums up the problem this administration is going to get into.

LOL! I don't know about you, but I thought that we should have been dropping bombs on Saddam the second he removed weapons inspectors from Iraq. What Bush is doing right now is LATE. That pussy clinton should have gotten off his buttocks and done something about it, but apparantly he was a little bit.... Hmm... how would you say....

"occupied"

The SECOND I heard that Saddam was hiding chemical and/or biological WMD, I thought "we gotta do something about this A-hole"

I knew exactly what and how anthrax worked before the scare after 9-11.

I've learned what VX, Serin, and Botox were before Bush got into office, and it's not just "Hollywood" knowlege either. I've written several papers on each of them.

But to quote "The Rock"

"...you know how this S*** works?"

I was afraid for this country a WHILE before bush got into office.


...now I don't mean afraid as in quivering in a corner with a gas-mask on, but I was pretty darn concerned about the condition of this country, and that people like Saddam are sittin' around making this crap and we're not doing something about it.


Collegeboy, I find it insulting that you automatically put me off as a Bush-Administration Sheep who's scared for America just cuz he said so.

Hell, "just cuz he said so" should be good enough for most of us. He's the goddamn president!

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by joeyjoe367

That pussy clinton should have gotten off his buttocks and done something about it, but apparantly he was a little bit.... Hmm... how would you say....

"occupied"

You know that I disagree with most of what you say based on previous posts. I have to admit, however, that the above quote had laughing my butt off!

[Collegeboy]

[Collegeboy]

Oh and to FOL

You always portray me as a socialist Democrat. Which I am far from. So by saying I am like Carter, in the fact that he is a democrat, I thought you were meaning I am a dem. Which is false.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Oh and to FOL

You always portray me as a socialist Democrat. Which I am far from. So by saying I am like Carter, in the fact that he is a democrat, I thought you were meaning I am a dem. Which is false.

No kid, YOU always portray yourself that way.

I've so far described you as a Useful Idiot and a straight up One World Socialist.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
And no I am not French. My father was born in Paris yes, but he is an American. He was born in 1938 and lived there until they had to leave for the Germans were coming. His father was stationed at the Embassy.

Had to leave because the Germans were coming?

At least the Poles fought for their turf.

[Jojo1]

aaron,

First of all we Iraq is a terrorist nation. Second of all the Brits and French helping us in dessert storm is nice, but its not helping us now. Im gonna keep this short...how do you know what Saddam has...are you there?
Do you work for the CIA...The American government does not even know everything he has. All it takes is one bomb given from Saddam to one nutcase to bring this country to its knees. 9/11 was bad it could be even worse, and people like you amaze me by not wanting to go to war. For all we know Osama Bin Laden could be eating lunch with Saddam everyday. WHY do we as American have to wait to get victimized before we do anything. Im getting really tired of hearing that. In 1993 when the WTC was bombed they should have went into afganistan and took out Bin Laden, but no we had to wait until thousands of people were murdered. What good for us and the Iraqi people is Saddam? I can think of none, but I can think of many with Saddam out of the picture....Anyway I didnt want to write this much, but i did. One more thing to add...The President was elected whether you voted for him or not, some people need to grow some nuts and support him...

[Collegeboy]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife



Had to leave because the Germans were coming?

At least the Poles fought for their turf.

So did the French, history is a good thing, try studying it sometimes.

And I am not portraying myself as socialist. Those who don't know what socialist is might think so, but to those who know, I am not.

[joeyjoe367]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
Joeyjoe367
I made that assumption because you just spitted what I feel is the number one problem with the administration today. They don't care about what happens afterwards. IN order to have a successful war you have to win the peace.

Ok, correct me if I'm wrong:

You're not against attacking Iraq, but you don't agree with what'll happen afterwards?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Collegeboy


So did the French, history is a good thing, try studying it sometimes.

And I am not portraying myself as socialist. Those who don't know what socialist is might think so, but to those who know, I am not.

what a crock. I already graduated with honors from my schooling, and yourself?

[Jack_Dubious]

what Bush Sr. has to say..

"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."

-From "Why We Didn't Remove Saddam" by George Bush [Sr.] and Brent Scowcroft, Time (2 March 1998)

[aaron_mag]

Can I change my vote on who is the master debater? (chanting) Jack Dubious, Jack Dubious. I am a humble student to the master. You should take notes as well Collegeboy.

Don't worry, however, 1stdeadeye is going to come back with that this was BEFORE 9/11. So the debate goes on, and on...

[Jack_Dubious]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
Can I change my vote on who is the master debater? (chanting) Jack Dubious, Jack Dubious. I am a humble student to the master. You should take notes as well Collegeboy.

Don't worry, however, 1stdeadeye is going to come back with that this was BEFORE 9/11. So the debate goes on, and on...

lol...im just quoting people! Im definately not the Master Bater.....er...Master Debater I mean :P

JDub

[oldsoldier]

Hey all, watch CNN. We are "backing down a little", due to the precarious stance of blair in his political party. But, on the REAL side...it seems that Saddam is bringing forth new "papers" indicating where the 55 thousand barrels of biological weapons material "went" to. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt that what 1441 was for? And, didnt the regime already "present" the papers, saying they didnt have any? This leads to one of two "logical" conclusions; one, they flat out lied. Two, they continued producing chemical weapons, AFTER they AGREED not to (um, no less than six times in 12 years). Also, countries that produce chemical weapons produce them for a reason; they are OFFENSIVE WEAPONS. This indicates an intent of hostility. Hiding them indicates an intent to continue hostility. Do you honestly think that Saddam is going to suddenly turn "good", and turn over all this stuff? Doubtful. We only get him to move when we threaten him. He shows no real intent to disarm. Bush is showing AMAZING restraint in not attacking him now. Why? Because we respect what the world says, even though we dont have to. No one here has all the info on what was found; nor do they have the scoop on the politicking going on behind the scenes. We cant forget that. Like it or not, he will be removed. And, we will be leading the occupational force to do that. He WILL NOT step down otherwise. He flat out stated that during the Arab League conference. The world doesnt have a choice.