Do Not Stop President Bush

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Also I do not wish the President or any of his war cabinet any harm other than to be put out of office in the next election for being the lying scum that they are.

That lying scumbag you are referring to has been out of office since 2000. He was also penalized for his efforts to lie to the courts.

 

[OCA]

I mean the president and his cabinet you don't wish well which I could understand because I certainly didn't wish Bubba and his band of socialists/communists well. I still hope that Bubba catches a nasty viral infection from one of the 25 cent preview booths at his presidential library and dies a slow death lol.

 

[eric]

25 cent preview booths

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by jimnyc
That lying scumbag you are referring to has been out of office since 2000. He was also penalized for his efforts to lie to the courts.

I was trying to avoid saying that as I assume that State knows that Bubba was actually brought up on house charges on perjury and had an impeachment trial. I mean only the 2nd president in history to have that stigma attatched to him. I love how he claims innocence to Paula Jones but ends up paying her whatever that huge sum of money was. Ahhhh I could go on forever about that lowlife sumbitch............

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by jimnyc
I guess it wasn't as easy as you assumed. NOWHERE in that video does he state Iraq was an imminent threat.



Nobody was dropping anything. Iraq was shooting at our planes that were securing the no fly zones. Nothing was done by the US until they were fired upon. Another breach, and another one wrong for you!



Just another breach added to the list. Add them all up and you have a recipe for necessary force to make them comply.

What a great bit of slight of hand that was Jim. You are remarkable. Again, for those who missed it. This was your post. "nothing was done by the US until they were fired upon. Unquote. You now offer as proof some instances where the Iraqi's (reportedly) shot first as proof that US forces NEVER shot first. Please ask yourself a question. Do you really think the US would send pilots into battle and tell them wait until a missile was in the air flying at them at supersonic speeds before they deployed their anti-missile devices, attemp to jam their radar, take evasive measures and then, oh yea, while your trying not to get your ass shot off, take a bearing on your target and launch a missile. Geez. Thank God you were never in the military. Again, Again, the US was trying to shoot first if they were lit up by Iraqi radar! That is how you kill them before they kill you which, generally speaking, is the idea of warfare.

Also, I don't know if you are aware of it, but for a while the US forces patrolling the no fly zone were droping munitions without explosives. I swear it is true. There were growing concerns about the numbers of civilians kiilled by US forces by mistake. So removing the high explosives limited the "colleratal damage" but the 500 pounds or so of metal and cement in the bombs would still destroy the mobile radar or launchers that they were shooting at. I swear this is true.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by eric

Ok Eric lol i'm not a computer geek and i've been wondering this for a while now, how do you guys just cut that little portion of the paragraph out and put the bars on top and bottom?

I know I know this is off topic just an answer and we'll forget it ever happened lol

 

[eric]

Hey I refused to shake his hand at a dinner, never know where it has been !

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by OCA
I mean the president and his cabinet you don't wish well which I could understand because I certainly didn't wish Bubba and his band of socialists/communists well. I still hope that Bubba catches a nasty viral infection from one of the 25 cent preview booths at his presidential library and dies a slow death lol.

:clap1:

Bad politics, good sense of humor. Fair enough!

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Oh man, why not post this b.s. in the anti-usa section! What state of mind are you really in? sure dont sound too American to me!

All you have to do is ask this question then sit back in amazement at the answer.

State, if you were president and something had to be done about Iraq and terrorism given the same world situation that Bush faced what would have been your course of action?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
What a great bit of slight of hand that was Jim. You are remarkable. Again, for those who missed it. This was your post. "nothing was done by the US until they were fired upon. Unquote. You now offer as proof some instances where the Iraqi's (reportedly) shot first as proof that US forces NEVER shot first. Please ask yourself a question. Do you really think the US would send pilots into battle and tell them wait until a missile was in the air flying at them at supersonic speeds before they deployed their anti-missile devices, attemp to jam their radar, take evasive measures and then, oh yea, while your trying not to get your ass shot off, take a bearing on your target and launch a missile. Geez. Thank God you were never in the military. Again, Again, the US was trying to shoot first if they were lit up by Iraqi radar! That is how you kill them before they kill you which, generally speaking, is the idea of warfare.

Also, I don't know if you are aware of it, but for a while the US forces patrolling the no fly zone were droping munitions without explosives. I swear it is true. There were growing concerns about the numbers of civilians kiilled by US forces by mistake. So removing the high explosives limited the "colleratal damage" but the 500 pounds or so of metal and cement in the bombs would still destroy the mobile radar or launchers that they were shooting at. I swear this is true.

Whether you think it was slight of hand or not is irrelevant. There were quite a few instances where Iraq fired on the planes unprovoked. Yes, quite a few of these flying missions were to take out growing military targets, but not all. They fired upon planes and that was in breach of the resolutions, which was my point from the beginning. There were quite a few instances where they were in breach. You questioned what they were in breach of earlier, I gave you the answers. Now you want to downplay all the breaches. Small or large, they were in serious violation of the resolutions. The most important of all was that they never full complied with arms inspectors. They were left unattended for far too long. Saddam thumbed his nose one too many times and paid the price by going from a palace, to a rathole and then to prison.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Oh man, why not post this b.s. in the anti-usa section! What state of mind are you really in? sure dont sound too American to me!

Nope, it is really true. The US were firing PGM's, often referred to as "smart bombs." If they hit the tartet from 25,000 feet...no more radar. Period. But the US were inflicting unintended causalities. Believe it or not Evil, American pilots tend to be good human beings with no desire to kill civilians unnecessarily. The US military has, in fact, bragged about this as proof that the US military is the most humane in the world -- taking extrordinary steps to limit unintened civilian casualties. That is how I first heard of this. Why would you think Americans would not remove the high explosives if they could get the job done without them and limit civilian death. Do you think the US military is unamerican, brutal, insensitive to civilian death? It seems you are the unamerican one.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
NOT!

dont make me come through the lines and bitch slap ya!

:

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by OCA
All you have to do is ask this question then sit back in amazement at the answer.

State, if you were president and something had to be done about Iraq and terrorism given the same world situation that Bush faced what would have been your course of action?

The important thing is to not get the two confused. We were attacked by terrorists, from Afganistan. We were not attacked by Iraq. Mixing up the two weakens our fight against terrorists who pose a real and immediate threat to the US.

We diverted military assets from Afganistan to Iraq.

We diverted 150 billion dollars to Iraq while our first responders at home lack basic training and equipment

We have undermined the international institutions and alienated our allies that we need to effectively fight terror

Thousands of American soldiers have been killed or wounded fighting the wrong war.

We've created a recruitement and retention nightmare for the US military while providing a propaganda and recruitment bonanza for the terrorists.


And neither war is won. We should have finished the first one. The lack of WMD is proof positive that we did have the time to execute our mission with respect to terrorism and keep Saddam contained.


How about you. What would you have done differently? I assume that if you were in charge instead of debya, we might have won one of these wars.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
The important thing is to not get the two confused. We were attacked by terrorists, from Afganistan. We were not attacked by Iraq. Mixing up the two weakens our fight against terrorists who pose a real and immediate threat to the US.

We diverted military assets from Afganistan to Iraq.

We diverted 150 billion dollars to Iraq while our first responders at home lack basic training and equipment

We have undermined the international institutions and alienated our allies that we need to effectively fight terror

Thousands of American soldiers have been killed or wounded fighting the wrong war.

We've created a recruitement and retention nightmare for the US military while providing a propaganda and recruitment bonanza for the terrorists.


And neither war is won. We should have finished the first one. The lack of WMD is proof positive that we did have the time to execute our mission with respect to terrorism and keep Saddam contained.


How about you. What would you have done differently? I assume that if you were in charge instead of debya, we might have won one of these wars.

I remember the days when this country didn't expect a war to be won in two weeks. Patience, both these fronts(as they are the same war) will be finished in due time.

As for the recruitment and retention nightmare for the military, where did you pick that up? Hadn't heard that one and find it hard to believe unless you are looking at anti American liberals joining up then yeah its a nightmare.

As for WMD can I hide a 50 gallon drum in the Mojave Desert and see if you can find it? Like i've stated before only fools think that Sadaam didn't have WMD and wasn't mixed up with international terrorism. Al Qaeda had money and Sadaam loved money regardless of philosophy, hell he'd sell his mom for a dollar.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by OCA

As for the recruitment and retention nightmare for the military, where did you pick that up? Hadn't heard that one and find it hard to believe unless you are looking at anti American liberals joining up then yeah its a nightmare.

As for WMD can I hide a 50 gallon drum in the Mojave Desert and see if you can find it? Like i've stated before only fools think that Sadaam didn't have WMD and wasn't mixed up with international terrorism. Al Qaeda had money and Sadaam loved money regardless of philosophy, hell he'd sell his mom for a dollar.

As far as the military goes, I got that from a report released hmmm, I belive last month, might have been january, by those commies/liberals at the U.S. Army War College. Also, an extensive survey by Star and Stripes Newspaper. I would not dismiss these sources too quickly, they are generally well respected by the military.

As far as the WMD goes, I fully expected the US to find WMD buried somewhere, even if Bush had to put it there himself. I am surprised he hasn't gotten someone to bury a few warheads somewhere. Nonetheless, I opposed the war before it started, as I do now. The presence or lack therof, does not impact the reasons I stated that the war has undermined the fight against terrorism.

 

[spillmind]

dammit arnie.... no fair checking my IP to see when i'm logged on... is this where *you* found your life? ...you know it's all love, bro!

state o mind makes some excellent points. and i hate jumping in and playing jump on the bandwagon. while i've personally never taken the resolutions seriously, st8 seems to be more eloquent with the simple logic analogy that leaves a lot to be desired. i've made the point time and time again, if the UN is irrelevant in condoning the war, who cares which resolutions were broken beholden to this organization? we can spin this all we want, but the glaring disparity is pretty damn obvious to a 'non-partisan' perspective.

that's about all i have time for bout now.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Did you really think that it would all be over with by now?

No. Do you think it was a good idea for Hitler to open a second front? I am saying Bush is a weak commander in chief. What could be more ass-backward than attacking the wrong country?!!

Speaking of ass backward.....you still promising that spanking....st8's been verrry naughty, daddy.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by spillmind
dammit arnie.... no fair checking my IP to see when i'm logged on... is this where *you* found your life? ...you know it's all love, bro!

state o mind makes some excellent points. and i hate jumping in and playing jump on the bandwagon. while i've personally never taken the resolutions seriously, st8 seems to be more eloquent with the simple logic analogy that leaves a lot to be desired. i've made the point time and time again, if the UN is irrelevant in condoning the war, who cares which resolutions were broken beholden to this organization? we can spin this all we want, but the glaring disparity is pretty damn obvious to a 'non-partisan' perspective.

that's about all i have time for bout now.

And if the local police don't want to enforce the law, I guess we should throw our hands in the air and allow total anarchy.

The UN failed to finish with the started objective. The US is finishing the job.

 

[OCA]

1. The war in Iraq and the war on terrorism are 1 in the same thing. Like I stated before only fools and uneducated people(not to say that you are because your posts are legible and well thought out) believe that Sadaam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda and international terrorism. This does not take a rocket scientist to put these two together. Hell the fact that he was making financial payments to families of Palestinian suicide bombers is proof enough.

 

[Annie]

have we forgotten that he had used the chemical weapons on his people and the Kurds? Have we forgotten in the eight-year of war that he had used these chemicals on Iran? Have we forgotten that he was building a supper gun that could attack Israel? Have we forgotten The Scott missiles that were used on Israel? Just imagine if they were loaded with chemical warheads. He had pushed the envelope many times over and over. He had genocide against the Shiites and Kurds. There is evidence that Saddam had begun talks and even helped some Al Qaida’s cells.

As usual, I'm way late getting into this. Iraq under Saddam had employed chemical weapons on the Iranians and Kurds, both under tv scrutiny so we won't argue.

During the "Gulf War I" Saddam's army surrendered in numbers that overwhelmed the coalition. No WMD's were used, though feared. During the intervening years UN inspectors were employed, (along with US and UK flyovers), to account for Iraq arms. In 1998 President Clinton asked for and recieved confirmation for Iraq being a state of terror. Same year, Saddam kicked the UN out.

9/11. For some weird reason, Iraq was amoung the questioned countries for backing of this attack. NOTHING was found to support this backing, thus in October Afghanistan, not Iraq was attacked. Iraq would not be attacked for over another year.

What in the name of snoopy is Clarke speaking of?