dblfugger9
|
posted on February 13, 2005 01:22:48 PM new
kraft, if you get parade magazine there, they list the top 10 dictators and what the threat assessment is in today's issue. Maybe its online somewhere too.
|
logansdad
|
posted on February 13, 2005 01:35:11 PM new
And, if you'd be so kind, we all KNOW saddam DID have them. Since he never proved to the UN where they went....
Linda just how do you know for a fact that he DID have them. Are you basing your opinion on the fact because everyone said so or are you basing it on the the fact that the faulty intelligence said so.
I'll never understand how so many on the left can excuse saddam's lack of accountability to the US and the UN...for 13 years....while blaming this President for starting an un-necessary war. Never. Saddam had the control and could have prevented this war.
When Bush decided to start the war, the UN inspectors were in Iraq looking for the WMD. So don't say Saddam started this was. It was Bush who was impatient and could not let the inspectors do their job. It is true that Saddam did not do much to reduce people's fear in the years prior but the inspectors were there in the months preceeding the start of this war. Bush failed to give the inspectors the time they needed to either confirm or deny the existence of the WMD. Why is that? Was it because Bush wanted this war no matter what the inspectors found? Was it because he wanted to begin his quest of bringing democracy to the Middle East. The fact is Bush had this war planned well before 9/11.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2005 01:47:24 PM new
logansdad - Linda just how do you know for a fact that he DID have them.
Where have YOU been? The whole world new he had them...and he USED them. Remember all those thousands upon thousands of people he murdered using them?
NO ONE, in any country, throught he didn't have them. They just didn't want war. They wanted to give him more time....after 13 years of 'last chance' options to come clean.
Are you basing your opinion on the fact because everyone said so or are you basing it on the the fact that the faulty intelligence said so.
It's not an opinion....it's a fact...the whole world knew about..except apparently YOU.
When Bush decided to start the war, the UN inspectors were in Iraq looking for the WMD. So don't say Saddam started this was. It was Bush who was impatient and could not let the inspectors do their job.
I just LOVE seeing a leftie take the side of saddam over his own country. And you question why I see some posters here as anti-American? LOL That's one good way I can prove it. Even those who opposed going to war...WEREN'T TAKING SADDAM'S side.
Bush failed to give the inspectors the time they needed to either confirm or deny the existence of the WMD. Why is that?
DUH....because he had aleady been given 13 years to 'clear it up'....and he was still palying games. We had just been attacked on 9-11. The threat saddam had posed since 1991 was even harder to ignore after 9-11. Saddam HATED the US. But..it's good to know who likes him better than the last three President's and our Congress' for the past THREE administrations. ...YOU>
So...be a saddam defender if that's your choice...I support my country and my Presidents.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on February 13, 2005 02:03:39 PM new
Linda, you're still talking about how Saddam was a threat and how he wouldn't disclose info., yet you don't understand that some feel he wasn't enough of a threat to go to war with his whole country over, especially for unsubstantiated reasons.
If you want to talk about countries that don't disclose things, how do you feel about Pakistan having almost twice as many nuclear arms than reported? How about India? China? Should they be invaded?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on February 13, 2005 02:13:27 PM new
Linda, why didn't Saddam attack? He was given fair warning that ships were being deployed. If he had weapons, why didn't he use them? Wouldn't it have been the right thing for him to do to defend his country?
Logan, you're right on. There needed to be a war in the Middle East. It was the ONLY way the U.S. could get a foothold there. The oil supplies aren't as healthy as our leaders lead us to believe.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2005 02:39:08 PM new
Linda, you're still talking about how Saddam was a threat and how he wouldn't disclose info.,
no I'm not, KD. Read the 1990-91 agreement between Iraq[saddam] and the UN. It pretty much says that the US agreed to not remove saddam because he promised to destroy is womd.
yet you don't understand that some feel he wasn't enough of a threat to go to war with his whole country over, especially for unsubstantiated reasons.
And many of those countries had ulterior motives in why they choose to support saddam. It's called MONEY. And our intel had told us for over two administrations that saddam hadn't destroyed his womd...and many nations were concerned he was building nuclear weapons.
If you want to talk about countries that don't disclose things,
But one difference between the two is saddam had agreed with the UN to do so.
how do you feel about Pakistan having almost twice as many nuclear arms than reported? How about India? China? Should they be invaded?
At a moments notice if our government believes they present ANY threat to our country. For quite a while now...and at this present time they aren't a threat. But Iran is....and if 'talks' don't work out...you may just see us going in there. For now, this President wants us to be working behind the scenes....abetting the Iranians who want to overthrow the cleric leaders.
Linda, why didn't Saddam attack? He was given fair warning that ships were being deployed.
I don't know anymore than anyone else does. We can all speculate. I'm one who believes as soon as he saw he wasn't posponing this 'game' any longer....he transported them out of the country...or buried them somewhere. So he wouldn't have been able to use them.
But if you remember....that's all the left talked about at the time....our soldiers were going into chemical war like no other...etc...etc. Scaring everybody to death about what saddam WAS likely to do IF we invaded.
If he had weapons, why didn't he use them? Explained above.
Wouldn't it have been the right thing for him to do to defend his country?
Are you serious here? LOL He used his own people as human shields in 1990-91 war. He spent billions of dollars building his own palaces...while his people starved to death. But...no matter the terrible things saddam was doing to his people....it's President Bush that they see as the 'evil' one. How very, very sad they are so mistaken while they give saddam every reason to have been left in power.
When the left talks about the deaths of our soldiers....they appear to me to be forgetting the deaths that occurred daily under saddam and his sons. Nope...if they'd had their way....saddam would still be in power and all those people would still be dying and would still be being tortured.
I, for one, am VERY glad he's not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 13, 2005 03:01 PM ]
|
maggiemuggins
|
posted on February 13, 2005 03:26:33 PM new
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Feb 14, 2006 10:10 AM ]
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 13, 2005 03:37:58 PM new
An excellent answer too, Maggie. My remark was aimed more at linda than you. I could copy past reams of answers that I alone have provided...as I said over and over. She knows that the question has been answered and all of her points have been successfully countered....many times.
|
dblfugger9
|
posted on February 13, 2005 03:38:50 PM new
long before you arrived, Maggie.
Whats going on here? I think she's diss'ing ya there, magster.... you speak for yourself? wow. good for you!
bad.bad helen. Now linda will have to retract she doesnt diss the lefties, only for maggie. 
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 13, 2005 03:48:55 PM new
dbfugger, You are all fugged up.
|
dblfugger9
|
posted on February 13, 2005 03:50:08 PM new
LOL Helen!!
lame, lame.
|
classicrock000
|
posted on February 13, 2005 03:50:20 PM new
An excellent answer too, Maggie.
another ass kisser-when will it ever end??
|
dblfugger9
|
posted on February 13, 2005 03:55:05 PM new
oh classic, go back to arkansas where the bufallos roam and kiss ass daily! (kidding you
omg I just saw the music critic from CNN interviewing janet reno at the grammys!!?? I was like wth is doing with her? With all these performers there!
Seems she has a record up!
whaddyaknow!
okay going to tune in to see my favorite staaars. dont have too much fun over here without me.
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Feb 13, 2005 04:00 PM ]
|
maggiemuggins
|
posted on February 13, 2005 04:06:33 PM new
[ edited by maggiemuggins on Feb 14, 2006 10:10 AM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2005 04:30:57 PM new
classic - sorry....I'm withdrawing my question to you....I now realize I misunderstood a comment you made.
Ooooops 
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 13, 2005 05:06 PM ]
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2005 04:33:28 PM new
Oh and helen....no you didn't answer over and over. Everytime the questions got tough...you had to go somewhere...or you were threatening NEVER to speak to me again.
But it really doesn't matter does it? Because he's been re-elected....not impeached....and will be protecting this nation for another 4 years.
So...I'm happy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 13, 2005 04:36:23 PM new
Another lie.
You bore me, linda.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2005 04:39:20 PM new
good...I don't come here to entertain you. And I like setting the record straight.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
|
Helenjw
|
posted on February 13, 2005 04:40:33 PM new
You haven't set a record straight in three years.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2005 04:44:56 PM new
.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
|
classicrock000
|
posted on February 13, 2005 05:11:32 PM new
"oh classic, go back to arkansas where the bufallos roam and kiss ass daily! (kidding you"
buffalos in Arkansas???
was in West Memphis,Ar once at a truck stop on my way out west.Found egg shells in my pancakes...never been back.
|
Linda_K
|
posted on February 13, 2005 05:24:35 PM new
Yep...buffalos in Arkansas. More and more farmers are raising herds of buffalo, rather than cows. They say their more healthy....less fat. But they sure aren't as cute as the cow faces are.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Four More Years....YES!!!
|
classicrock000
|
posted on February 13, 2005 06:06:09 PM new
' classic - sorry....I'm withdrawing my question to you....I now realize I misunderstood a comment you made."
yea linda,I was wondering what you were talking about-dont be confusing an old man,Im confused enough
I had a "buffalo burger" here last summer.They taste just like hamburger,but they are alot leaner and therefore dryer-I like my burgers juicy.I've always associated buffalos with Wyoming and Montana.
|
logansdad
|
posted on February 13, 2005 07:04:20 PM new
Where have YOU been? The whole world new he had them...and he USED them. Remember all those thousands upon thousands of people he murdered using them?
When did he use them since the first Iraq War ended. Please tell me.
DUH....because he had aleady been given 13 years to 'clear it up'....and he was still palying games.
If that was the case he would not have allowed the inspectors back into Iraq in 2001.
Absolute faith has been shown, consistently, to breed intolerance. And intolerance, history teaches us, again and again, begets violence.
----------------------------------
Bush will fix Social Security just like he has fixed Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Bush can't be trusted to run this country and you want to trust him with your retirement?
|
crowfarm
|
posted on February 13, 2005 07:09:37 PM new
"""the lead story in one of the Sunday morning newspapers is a count down of the world top ten dictators.""""
What number was bush....two or three?
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on February 13, 2005 07:13:30 PM new
"You haven't set a record straight in three years."
|
dblfugger9
|
posted on February 13, 2005 07:15:58 PM new
Classic, I dont think you're saying "buff-err-low" right for a Ny'er.
Linda, are they really trying to get more into buffalo as meat produce, than cows?? ewww! (eww! on cows, but more so on baffalo*) hmmm...thats got me completely baffled. They're so huge!
|
kraftdinner
|
posted on February 13, 2005 07:20:55 PM new
The top 10 are -
1. Kim Jong-il (North Korea)
2. King Fahd and Prince Abdullah (Saudi Arabia)
3. Saddam Hussein
4. Charles Taylor (Liberia)
5. Than Shwe (former Burma, now Myanmar)
6. Teodoro Obiang Nguema (Equatorial Guinea)
7. Saparmurat Niyazov (Turkmenistan)
8. Muammar Gaddafi (Libya)
9. Fidel Castro (Cuba)
10. Alexander Lukashenko (Belarus)
Seems like NK and S. Arabia have worse dictators than Iraq. Weird.
|
replaymedia
|
posted on February 13, 2005 07:27:53 PM new
Why is Saddam Hussein on the list at all?
How OLD is that list?
--------------------------------------
Replay Media - The best source for board games, card games and miniatures on the web!
http://www.replaymedia.com
|
crowfarm
|
posted on February 13, 2005 08:01:51 PM new
Kraft, the Saudi royalty are close personal friends of the bushes. Doesn't matter that they repeatedly chop off heads...it's acceptable if you're good buddies.
Don't worry, bushy will leave the Saudis alone no matter what they do.
|
