Kay Sera Sera

[eric]

 

[jones]

You're a JOKE! You don't even realize the relevancy!!

Get your head out of the propaganda.

 

[eric]

Why not enlighten us then ?

 

[jimnyc]

Sliced melons are on sale at Stop n Shop for 19 cents per pound.

 

[eric]

How about Tin Foil ?

 

[eric]

Just business as usual for you cheap labor types.

Why you need a job ?

 

[jones]

He used 9/11 as an excuse to go into iraq. But of course you'll deny it.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
He used 9/11 as an excuse to go into iraq. But of course you'll deny it.

How do you explain the prior 10 years of sanctions and resolutions? Would Saddam have cooperated with investigators had 9/11 never happened?

 

[jones]

You think 9/11 had something to do with saddam? Please explain that one.


And if not immenint like you claim. Why not wait for proof of WMD?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
You think 9/11 had something to do with saddam? Please explain that one.


And if not immenint like you claim. Why not wait for proof of WMD?

Jones, please read carefully before responding. I never said anything even close to that. I asked 2 questions, and I'll ask them again:

1) How do you explain the prior 10 years of sanctions and resolutions?

2) Would Saddam have cooperated with investigators had 9/11 never happened?

 

[jones]

Actually you do claim it was not immenint , so why not wait for proof of WMD? Please answer this question.

1) How do you explain the prior 10 years of sanctions and resolutions?

He was not contained? Or did I miss another attack?

) Would Saddam have cooperated with investigators had 9/11 never happened?

Why do you think I would know this? All I can say is the Hijackers had NOTHING to do with what was going on with the inspections. They were from Saudi Arabia.
You know? The people that burn our flag and chant "down with america",

 

[jimnyc]

He was not contained? Or did I miss another attack?

The resolutions didn't call for him to be contained, they called for him to cooperate unconditionally. He failed to do so. They called for him to stop the oppression. He failed to do so. They called for him to provide proof to the investigators of all previously declared weapons. He failed to do so.

In other words, this war was in the making for 10 years prior to 9/11.

Why do you think I would know this? All I can say is the Hijackers had NOTHING to do with what was going on with the inspections. They were from Saudi Arabia.
You know? The people that burn our flag and chant "down with america",

Saddam played his games for the entire time inspectors were present. He wouldn't have complied with the resolutions whether 9/11 happened or not. We still would have invaded Iraq. Your claim that 9/11 was the excuse is ludicrous.

Actually you do claim it was not immenint , so why not wait for proof of WMD? Please answer this question.

Why not wait until they use them? Would that have been proof enough? They saw danger and acted appropriately to minimize the chances of it ever reaching that level. I think 12 years of waiting for Saddam to cooperate was sufficient.

 

[jones]

Your claim that 9/11 was the excuse is ludicrous.

Why didn't they introduce the problem earlier then. Infact powell said they had no WMDs before 9/11.

Why not wait until they use them? Would that have been proof enough? They saw danger and acted appropriately to minimize the chances of it ever reaching that level. I think 12 years of waiting for Saddam to cooperate was sufficient.

What? what? You have proof of WMD after gulf war?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Why didn't they introduce the problem earlier then. Infact powell said they had no WMDs before 9/11.

Powell never said that. Provide your sources please! Shit, Saddam admitted he had chemical weapons and declared them in 1998! Unfortunately they disappeared and no proof was ever given of their destruction.

What? what? You have proof of WMD after gulf war?

First off, read above. Saddam declared banned chemicals in 1998 that conveniently have since disappeared, so that blows your theory away.

Furthermore, the danger they acted on was based on intelligence gatherings.

 

[jones]

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/989348/posts

the danger they acted on was based on intelligence gatherings.

Pre-emptive war must be proven that its needed, without a doubt. Considering this the most controversial war in US history, I would say it was not sufficiant. Heck, all the intellectuals are speaking out against these corporatists. Bet you cant find one who agrees with them. Or how bout a historian , or an 80 year old.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/989348/posts



Pre-emptive war must be proven that its needed, without a doubt. Considering this the most controversial war in US history, I would say it was not sufficiant. Heck, all the intellectuals are speaking out against these corporatists. Bet you cant find one who agrees with them. Or how bout a historian , or an 80 year old.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2590265.stm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/cw/unscom.htm
http://www.q77.com/iraqwar/iraq.htm

Maybe you can account for previously accounted for weapons that have since disappeared?

Read the polls, Jones! The nation is almost divided equally in standing behind the war. I believe 40% in the polls would be more than 'one'. At least most of those opposed do so for their beliefs, not based on conspiracy theories.

 

[jones]

Support from elderly is expecially low. Most supporters are white mails with small penis.

And I would say its not based on CONPIRACY THEORIES!! hahah.
Its called corporatism, and those who are not be propagandised every waking moment realize this. Bet you can't find a policy that wouldnt benifit big business, and bet you cant find ANYTHING that helps the middle class from this Bush Regime.

The Iraq war is a fraud. Thats not a theory. And thats what most disapprovers agree on.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by jones
Support from elderly is expecially low. Most supporters are white mails with small penis.

Ok, debate with yourself, Jones. I don't feel like dealing with a 12 year old again this evening.

 

[eric]

Especially one who can not spell or form grammatical correct sentences !

 

[jones]

HHAHAH

Did I hit the nail on the head or what?