who's a bigger threat to the world? [Archive]

Newbie

10-12-2002, 03:34 PM

What I find even more interesting is the first thing to pop up here was Anthrax in the US Mail and to date where has it misterasly disapperaered too. Oh the next thing to spead like wildfire was West Nile Virus.

Excerpt from my above link

(Anthrax)

1968 CIA experiments with the possibility of poisoning drinking water by injecting chemicals into the water supply of the FDA in Washington, D.C.

(West Nile)

1956 U.S. military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, Ga and Avon Park, Fl. Following each test, Army agents posing as public health officials test victims for effects.

We as Americans are so blind to think the US government would never do wrong. I really people would open their f'n eye's.

We the people of the United States have failed to keep corruption out of the government.

"The people of every country are the only safe guardians of their own rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wyche, 1809.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789. ME 7:253

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the
right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort,
to protect against tyranny in government." --Thomas Jefferson

"Those who give up essential liberty, to preserve a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin,

smilb

10-12-2002, 08:01 PM

If the a**holes that START the wars had to FIGHT the wars...there would be a whole lot less wars.

Bush scares me more than Saddam...but I am sure there are people in Iraq that fear Saddam more than Bush.

ScottD

10-12-2002, 08:25 PM

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the
right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort,
to protect against tyranny in government." --Thomas JeffersonWe citizens of the US are the General Militia, it is our duty and our obligation to control our leaders, not just by voting but by forced removal if necessary.

Unfortunately we've gone so far astray from our original basics that we, the General Militia have absolutely no idea what is truth and what is fiction. We've been forced into a state of ignorance and dependence. We live stupidly, happily, and "let this guys in the know take care of business." We promote gun control laws like they are a good thing and give up our rights to protect our individual selves in favor of laziness because now that we can't have guns I don't have to teach my son the respect and responsibility required to exist and live a good life.

I grew up pampered and sheltered from the rest of the worlds problems because it was "being handled by the guys who know." and now I can't friggin carry a gun without going through this huge beuarocratic B.S. process that was meant to keep the guns away from criminals? News flash, criminals commit crimes and are not bloody likely to be buying a gun "legally."

That said, in all my ignorance and probable misinformation the best conclusion I can draw is that Sadam has had too much time to build his arsenal and we're doing too little too late. But I also feel that we have to do something.

Wouldn't it have been fun to see the requested "Duel" take place? Lay the feud between Saddam and Mr. Bush on the line and let them duke it out TEXAS style. It would probably suck to say byebye to Mr. Bush, and then we'd have Cheney as our Acting President, but I'll bet the Pepsi commercial during the half-time intermission would be grand.

In the end, I'm just a confused citizen who used to have an opinion but now doesn't know which way is up. The majority of our politial leaders are lying to us or are not at liberty to say, so how can I possibly draw an accurate conclusion based on my own principles that reflect the situation as it really is? I can't. I'm ignorant, and I really wish McCain was our president right now.

insiderhosting

10-12-2002, 08:39 PM

Sadaam is a bigger threat to the world because he has shown the world his true defiance of the UN inspectors. If he simply would have allowed the inspectors to do their jobs without interfering so may times, this would not even be an issue. All he has to do is open his doors and let the world check to see his arsenal as that is all they want to do. I draw parallels between Sadaam and the little trouble maker kid in 1st grade who always wants to rebel and try to get noticed. All he wants to do is cause trouble, like the idiot that he is. Sadaam is the one who is prevoking the US into war, and my hat goes off the President Bush for taking such a proactive role in this matter, instead of being a pacifist like Clinton, who should have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance.

-Steven

Newbie

10-13-2002, 01:05 AM

DizixCom,

Very True, but the GOVERNMENT is taking over the milita. Here's the Laws in Missouri. YES if you form a Milita in Missouri, you are under the control of the state government.

Missouri Revised Statutes
TITLE V
MILITARY AFFAIRS AND POLICE
August 28, 1999

41.050. The militia of the state shall include all able-bodied citizens and all other able-bodied residents, who, in the case of the unorganized militia and the Missouri reserve military force, shall be more than seventeen years of age and not more than sixty-four, and such other persons as may upon their own application be enrolled or commissioned therein, and who, in the case of the organized militia, shall be within the age limits and possess the physical and mental qualifications prescribed by law or regulations for the reserve components of the armed forces of the United States, except that this section shall not be construed to require militia service of any persons specifically exempted by the laws of the United States or the state of Missouri.

41.070. 1. The militia of the state is divided into two classes, the organized militia and the unorganized militia.

2. The organized militia shall consist of the following:

(1) Such elements of the land and air forces of the National Guard of the United States as are allocated to the state by the President or the Secretary of Army or Air, and accepted by the state, hereinafter to be known as the national guard and the air national guard;

(2) Such elements of the reserve naval forces of the United States as are allocated to the state by the President or the Secretary of the Navy, and accepted by the state, hereinafter called the naval militia; and the

(3) Missouri reserve military force, when organized.

3. The unorganized militia shall consist of all persons liable to serve in the militia but not commissioned or enlisted in the organized militia.

41.120. The governor of the state, by virtue of his office, is the commander in chief of the militia of the state, except such portion thereof as may at times be in the service of the United States.

41.490. The governor shall have the power to organize from the unorganized militia of Missouri a reserve military force for duty within or without the state to supplement the Missouri national guard or replace it when it is mobilized in federal service. The Missouri reserve military force may be used to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, repel invasion, suppress lawlessness, and provide emergency relief to distressed areas in the event of earthquake, flood, tornado, or actual or threatened enemy attack or public catastrophe creating conditions of distress or hazard to public health and safety beyond the capacity of local or established agencies. The force shall consist of such organized troops, auxiliary troops, staff corps and departments as the governor deems necessary. The governor shall prescribe the strength and composition of the various units of the same, uniform and insignia and the qualifications of its members, and shall have the power to grant a discharge therefrom for any reason deemed by him sufficient.

Sorry for taking this kind of off topic, but I feel as though our government has, is, and will continue to overstep it's bounds in the international, state, federal levels.

Just like the rise and fall of many other forms of government ours will fall like the rest with this continued path of domination.

IceBlaZe

10-13-2002, 09:39 AM

All I goto add to this, is when the US are making the point that Saddam broke 16 UN resolutions, WHY???

Dont they look at Israel that has broken 226 UN Resolutions, all I goto say is DOUBLE STANDARDS...

You are obfuscating facts here.
We are talking about Security Council resolutions, and not regular General Assembly resolutions.
In the case Israel broke about 35, and the 16 of Saddam stands still.
In any case, have you ever looked at the resolutions Israel broke? Ever thought about what you would do if you were Israel?
The only double standard here is that Israel is getting slammed by the UN for nothing, so kudos for the US ignoring the resolutions Israel broke.

Also, Israel is not a threat and not an enemy of the united states, so it is actually the opposit of double standard not to attack Israel.
It is doing what's best for your interests.
What are the chances that Israel will launch a nuke on the united states, or any other western nation?
If anything, Israel is like a target that concentrates most of the Islamic Fundementalists, something that draws a lot of attention from the "Evilness" of the United States and Europe, as western cultures.

Until the Israel issue is not resolved the middle east will never be in peace, Israel is the cause of all current problems, when ever an issue arrises in the Middle East, the first thing that is asked for is Israel to leave the occupied land, and to full fill the 226 UN resolutions.

Wait... Because Israel was attacked on the first day it was proposed a land, Israel is the cause of the problems?
I thought it was all those Isalmic Dictatorships and never keep their hands off from funding terror organizations around it that are the problem.

The entire cause for the occupied territories conflict is the build up of Arab armies around Israel's borders in May 1967, before the June war.
Let me count... hmm... I remember 6 and a half Egyptian divisions in the Sinai alone.
And what is this entire double standard you are showing?
Count the number of resolutions the UN Slammed on Egypt and Jordan when they occupied those territories. NIL. One big, fat, ZERO.
That's not double standard?
How about Syria, one of the top Human Rights violators in this world, AND a nation who treats the Palestinian refugees more badly than Israel, being the president of the Security council? :rolleyes:
Wait... How about SUDAN, the CAPITAL of slavery, being the President of the UN Human Rights comittee? And THAT'S not double standard?

What does Bush think, Sadaam will not react to a war, the first thing he will do is drop everything he's got on Israel, the US is provoking a sleeping giant, to start WW3.

Saddam is not a giant, yet. But he will be once he gets his hands on a functioning Nuclear Weapon.
It's better to handle the problem before it does become serious.
Israel has the right to respond to Saddam, that is correct, but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam needs to be replaced and his Weapons abolished before he can blackmail western powers AND Israel with nuclear weapons.
If England would attack Germany before Hitler's army got real strong, that would also cause WW2.
But they didn't, because of that appeasement policy you are so prowd of, and guess what that caused.
6 Million dead Jews, 5 million other minorities and 49 Million dead Chinese, English, Germans, Americans, Japanese and others.
Now, when you preffer to wait for Saddam to get a nuke that he can detonate, the result will be the same if we follow your advice.

By the way, if you're posting then please, advise who you think is the bigger threat, Bush or Sadaam

Hmm, without being the righteous hypocrit I'll say Saddam.
Your revisionist news sources and self-righteous hypocritic attitude does not effect my common sense. :rolleyes:

s.h.a.z.y.

10-13-2002, 10:03 AM

and you say 35 is nothing? hypocrite
most UN resolutions to Israel still stand, or maybe they've been <removed>, and got them waived.

What about when Israel bombed a refugee camp and killed hundreds, a UN security resolution was passed to allow UN inspectors, to check the site, but NOOOOOO <removed>, told the UN to ****off, so what was there to hide? why did the UN not use force at that time?

You talk about being Israel, there is no Israel, its occupied land, and <removed>?

You say Israel is no threat, like US said Saddam was no threat, when they supplied him with all his weapons and knowledge to fight the cold war with Iran, what happened there?

You're just two faced, doing everything for money and power, and dont forget OIL, when it best suits the US.

Why would Israel want to attack any western country, with nukes and weapons, when it can do it without getting noticed, Sept 11, may I recall, all Israeli <removed> were off work the day the attack happened, hold on I think that was a coincidence, as it happens to be I lost someone in that attack, <removed>.

Who says to you that Saddam is going to fire his nukes? let me guess maybe the Bush Administration told you that, the US is the ONLY country to fire any nukes to this current date, and you call Saddam a threat, lol

You and common sense, lol, its what is feeded into you're mind, that makes you talk like that, not you're fault, you're all like that.

EDIT: who killed the chinese, the americans did, called a nuclear bomb.

EDIT: Another thing Israel has no right to respond to anyone, <removed>.

s.h.a.z.y.

10-13-2002, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by insiderhosting
Sadaam is a bigger threat to the world because he has shown the world his true defiance of the UN inspectors. If he simply would have allowed the inspectors to do their jobs without interfering so may times, this would not even be an issue. All he has to do is open his doors and let the world check to see his arsenal as that is all they want to do. I draw parallels between Sadaam and the little trouble maker kid in 1st grade who always wants to rebel and try to get noticed. All he wants to do is cause trouble, like the idiot that he is. Sadaam is the one who is prevoking the US into war, and my hat goes off the President Bush for taking such a proactive role in this matter, instead of being a pacifist like Clinton, who should have taken out Bin Laden when he had the chance.
-Steven

Steven,

Iraq, isnt the only country to defy UN resolutions, Israel has defied more, and a lot more recently than Iraq.

Iraqs resoultions are 8 years old, only recently was there a UN Security Resolution passed against Israel to allow UN Inspectors to visit a bombed refugee camp, and the Israel told the UN to ****off, and nothing has been done since.

Saddam has said he will allow inspectors back in, why the **** dosent US understand that? and you're saying Saddam wants a war, lol

IceBlaZe

10-13-2002, 10:24 AM

and you say 35 is nothing? hypocrite
most UN resolutions to Israel still stand, <removed>, and got them waived.

Practice some in reading. I never said they are nothing.
<removed: reply to above>

What about when Israel bombed a refugee camp and killed hundreds, a UN security resolution was passed to allow UN inspectors, to check the site, but NOOOOOO <removed>, told the UN to ****off, so what was there to hide? why did the UN not use force at that time?

Israel never bombed a refugee camp, <removed>.
After more than 50 Israelis died in passover due to Suicide Bombings, Israel decided to conduct an extensive operation to eliminate terrorist sources inside refugee camps.
First, let's open with the fact that if terrorists would not use refugee camps as their bases this entire thing would not happen.
Second of all, during the operation Palestinian sources and biased UN and Press reporters said Israel is "massacaring" hundreds inside those refugee camps.
All those claims were proved to be false when the operation ended, and the Palestinain Authority declared that no more then 50 Palestinians died, and most of them were militants.
Actually, an operation which was carefull taken was notorious as a massacre due to lousy press.

You talk about being Israel, there is no Israel, its occupied land, <removed>

Most of Israel's lands were British Mandate lands or Jewish Bought lands.
Soem of it is a result of wars the Israelis didn't start.
And the rest of it was never appended, such as the West Bank and Gaza.

You say Israel is no threat, like US said Saddam was no threat, when they supplied him with all his weapons and knowledge to fight the cold war with Iran, what happened there?

Not being an idiot, I guess he changed from not being a threat to being a threat.
In the same way Bin Laden changed.
Iraq was never friendly to the United States, nor was Bin Laden, but their fights were good for Anti-communist and Anti-Suni US interests.
Things change, and now they are a threat. Saying that does not make you a hypocrit, it makes you a person who knows to learn from his mistakes.

You're just two faced, doing everything for money and power, and dont forget OIL, when it best suits the US.

I don't understand what Oil has to do with the issue.
Free Oil Trade is already ensured for some time, and if the US wanted to invade for Oil, it would better suit invading or occupying a failing african country. More friendly population there, and more enriched oil sources.

Why would Israel want to attack any western country, with nukes and weapons, when it can do it without getting noticed, Sept 11, may I recall, all Israeli <removed> were off work the day the attack happened, hold on I think that was a coincidence, as it happens to be I lost someone in that attack, <removed>

<removed: reply to above>
I am Jewish, and I lost someone I know in that incident.
Jews were in September 11 as well as Christians and Muslims, and whoever was brain washing you you should snap out of it.
Racism hurts.

Who says to you that Saddam is going to fire his nukes? let me guess maybe the Bush Administration told you that, the US is the ONLY country to fire any nukes to this current date, and you call Saddam a threat, lol

:bawling:
You better wake up from any dream you are in, boy.
Saddam is a threat, he is a proven maniac with proven agression and documented megalomania.

You and common sense, lol, its what is feeded into you're mind, that makes you talk like that, not you're fault, you're all like that.

I'm not feeded with anything, nor do I wish to be, thank you.

EDIT: who killed the chinese, the americans did, called a nuclear bomb.

It was the Japanese who killed the Chinese, and the Americans who killed some of the Japanese. Ignorant :rolleyes:

richy

10-13-2002, 10:32 AM

who killed the chinese, the americans did, called a nuclear bomb.

did you go to school?
unless heroshima and nagasaki were subject to some serious landslides theyre in JAPAN not china. before you open your mouth check your facts.

Chicken

10-13-2002, 12:28 PM

Let me make something clear. If you (you being members who post in this thread), choose to post racist remarks, you will be banned, no warnings. Discussion is one thing, racist dribble is another, and those who cannot control themselves will be banned.

s.h.a.z.y.

10-13-2002, 02:09 PM

sorry Chicken.

Richy, woops they all look the same to me ;)

IceBlaZe: what different are you from the terrorists? you do exactly what they do? you have defined the word "terrorist" you suit you're own needs, the real terrorists are the ones that get away with it in public.

You got some guts to say Israel never bombed a refugee camp, as it happens to be thats exactly what they did.

It just happens to be that Yasser ArreFART has been bought out by the Israelis, and is playing the game that the Israelis want him to, he not realising that all it does it make him look even worse. (silly fool)

Lets add onto this topic, how can anyone go into anyones country and change the leadership, what gives them the right to do that?

Hostkookster

10-13-2002, 11:24 PM

Hey Jedito - do we dare enter the fray?? :D

IceBlaZe

10-14-2002, 01:39 PM

IceBlaZe: what different are you from the terrorists? you do exactly what they do? you have defined the word "terrorist" you suit you're own needs, the real terrorists are the ones that get away with it in public.

If I did what they do, I'd be already dead, and as much a much bigger amount of Palestinians.

You should snap out of whatever brainwashed you and realize that as a matter of fact Israel is showing restraint.
How many Israeli "Operations" do you hear of, despite the fact that the a priori target of the Palestinians are civilians?
Look at a breakdown of the Palestinian casualties, over 70% of them are Militants.

Look at a breakdown of the Israeli casualties, over 70% of them are innocent civilians.
So where do you get the right to compare the moral relevancy of the two sides?
Last time I heard an M-16 works against a soldier aswell as it works against a Civilian. Yet most of the Israeli targets are civilians.
Can you say the same about the Palestinian side? Most of their casualties are civilians? :rolleyes:

The real terrorists are those who butcher civilians in purpose.
Not the ones trying to survive suicide bombings.

You got some guts to say Israel never bombed a refugee camp, as it happens to be thats exactly what they did.

...UN report quashed Jenin massacre theories
August 2 2002

Jerusalem: Israel said today that a UN report on the battle it fought with Palestinian forces in the West Bank refugee camp of Jenin buried Palestinian allegations of a "massacre".

Senior foreign ministry official Dabiel Taub said the report, released today, also pointed the finger at the Palestinian Authority for allowing hardline militant groups to operate out of areas under its control.

"This report, like a lot of other initiatives in the United Nations, was a response to these allegations of a massacre that had taken place in Jenin, and the report is absolutely categorical that there was no such thing," Taub told AFP.

Palestinian minister Saeb Erakat had charged during the battle, when Israel sealed off the entire town and fought its way through the narrow streets of the camp, that around 500 people had been killed.

Details of the report leaked in advance indicated that 52 Palestinians and 23 Israeli troops were killed in the nine-day fight. Around half of the Palestinians were civilians.

advertisement

advertisement
Palestinians based their charges on the Israeli army's use of helicopter gunships, tanks and military bulldozers which reduced a large part of the refugee camp to ruins.

Israel said the Palestinian fighters from hardline factions had used the camp as a launching pad for suicide bombers who have caused devastation in Israel and had booby-trapped the town to hinder their advance.

"The report is decisively clear on the international legal obligations of the Palestinian Authority to not only not engage in terrorist acts itself but to prevent any acts of terrorism emanating from areas under its control against Israelis," said Taub.

"For us those are two crucial findings not just to clear up what happened in Jenin, but to pave the way for how we proceed in the future," he said.

The report also criticises Israel for hindering relief services trying to enter the camp during and after the fighting.

Taub admitted there were lessons to be learned from the fighting in early April, but also blamed Palestinian hardliners for allegedly using ambulances to smuggle weapons and fighters.

AFP ...

There you go. No need to say thank you ;)

It just happens to be that Yasser ArreFART has been bought out by the Israelis, and is playing the game that the Israelis want him to, he not realising that all it does it make him look even worse. (silly fool)

Arafat has been bought by the Israelis?
That's the most ridicolous claim I have heard in my life. :bawling:
Where do you get your information from, Al Jazeera? Arabnet? :rolleyes:

Did it ever come to your head that, not arguing the fact Arafat founded the PLO, a terrorist organization, he is a terrorist himself?
That he doesn't want to see Israel exist, as much as he hates to admit it?

No, no way. It must be the bad jews, excuse me, Israelis, that "Bought" Arafat.

You sure can twist around and stretch logic only so the Jews/Israelis fit your racialist and prejudice opinion.

But whatever. I guess common sense still haven't reached your mind :rolleyes:

Lamont

10-14-2002, 06:45 PM

I think that stupid people and those who think the world owes them something (both in the same group, maybe) are the most dangerous.

Ignorance is only bliss to the point where you have nothing left but the chains that bind you.

StarGate

10-14-2002, 07:03 PM

Bush!

Although he is only a "front" for the weapons industry who make up all those wars :angry:

IceBlaZe

10-15-2002, 09:54 AM

Bush!

So you'd rather live in Iraq or have Iraq to replace the United States as a superpower than live in the United States or have them as a superpower?

Fools, all of you ;). You don't know freedom until you lose it, so you punch with your squandered leftist self-righteous attitude anyone who tries to protect the freedom of his citizens.

s.h.a.z.y.

10-15-2002, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by IceBlaZe

So you'd rather live in Iraq or have Iraq to replace the United States as a superpower than live in the United States or have them as a superpower?

Fools, all of you ;). You don't know freedom until you lose it, so you punch with your squandered leftist self-righteous attitude anyone who tries to protect the freedom of his citizens.

Nobody is choosing between Iraq and US, there is no need for war with Iraq, you people are just twisted, why are you giving the impression that IRAQ is wanting war, its the US that wants the WAR not IRAQ.

Since when has IRAQ had the capabilites to attack the US, that will never happen, as Saddam will be crushed, before he new it, if there is a country he wants to attack it would be Israel.

Why is the US denying Iraq to protect itself, if the US can have Nuclear capabilities why cant any other country, its all about self defence, but for the US its all about POWER and who controls it, self-defence is just bollocks, US cant even catch a sniper in its own country, forget about taking Saddam out, and controlling the world.

susannad

10-15-2002, 11:06 AM

Bush

someone just give him the bloody oil and save us all this trouble

IceBlaZe

10-16-2002, 04:34 PM

Nobody is choosing between Iraq and US, there is no need for war with Iraq, you people are just twisted, why are you giving the impression that IRAQ is wanting war, its the US that wants the WAR not IRAQ.

Iraq doesn't want war because it is weak now.
You've got to strike the iron when it's hot.

Since when has IRAQ had the capabilites to attack the US, that will never happen, as Saddam will be crushed, before he new it, if there is a country he wants to attack it would be Israel.

Well, if he has a nuclear capability, it doesn't really matter if the US can respond or not after he uses it, does it? :rolleyes:

Why is the US denying Iraq to protect itself, if the US can have Nuclear capabilities why cant any other country, its all about self defence, but for the US its all about POWER and who controls it, self-defence is just bollocks, US cant even catch a sniper in its own country, forget about taking Saddam out, and controlling the world.

:confused:

What does an inside murder case has to do with Iraq?
You have serious issues. And yes, it is about policing the world.
The United States is a sole superpower, and thank you it is better than the soviets or any other former super power.
Where do you see US "Colonizations"?
Where is a US-Military controlled state?
None of the above exist. So if the United States sees Iraq as an imminent threat, which is correct, and wants to do something about it, fine by me.
Can't hurt. Saddam is killing his own people anyhow.

The US helped create a monster called Iraq, under the control of Saddam, and now that it wants to replace it with a stable and sane regime you complain?

What do you want to wait for before doing something about Saddam, a proven maniac?

He is a known anti-USA, anti-West, anti-Israeli megalomaniac, who doesn't question himself about gassing 5000 of his own citizens.

So you want to wait untill he is armed? Untill he does have a nuke?

There is nothing hypocritic about not wanting Saddam to have a nuke. He is a known agressor and an enemy.

Israel is not an Enemy of the west. France is not an enemy of the west.
Iraq is, and there lies the difference.

Some countries can be talked out of developing a nuclear program, but a megalomaniac dictator can't.

Good luck figuring out what will a Megalomanic tyrant do once he has a nuclear weapon.

cabalstudios

10-17-2002, 06:48 AM

Hasnt America, used chemical/biological weapons on its own military, and not told no-one, what do you have to say about that?

US tested chemicals on its forces (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/09/1034061256751.html)

Looking at the stats over 5500 civilians/military personell would have been affected, and have to be recalled for examination.

"It is appalling that 40 years have passed and this information is just now being disclosed."

Iraq is not the only one? or am I wrong.

IceBlaZe

10-22-2002, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by cabalstudios
Hasnt America, used chemical/biological weapons on its own military, and not told no-one, what do you have to say about that?

US tested chemicals on its forces (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/09/1034061256751.html)

Looking at the stats over 5500 civilians/military personell would have been affected, and have to be recalled for examination.

"It is appalling that 40 years have passed and this information is just now being disclosed."

Iraq is not the only one? or am I wrong.

40 Years ago! I didn't realize Bush Jr. is the President for that long... :rolleyes:

Oh wait! This has nothing to do with Bush! :rolleyes:

But wait... Did the US kill 5500 of it's Civilian/Military personnel? Were all of them not aware of the testing?
How much of that report is based on fact and not proportionless media reporting by a left-winged newspaper?

I have 5000 Kurdish bodies willing to attest Saddam didn't ask one of them before he killed them.

But wait, was the testing in America the work of a single dictator?

Most importantly, where is he now? Still president? Still dictator?

Add 20 years to those 40 you took info from, and there you have it, Germany gassed 6 million jews and 5 million other minorities?

No, Iraq isn't, wasn't and never will be the only country that had/has bad leadership that completely infringes the values of democracy and performs massacre in it's own citizens.

But it is the one currently with the same leader, for years on years on years of basic human rights violations that are a sharp indication that a ruthless dictator, that hates America and Israel especially, is not "sane".

If America would be as bad as Iraq, I would call for action against America.

For gods sakes, the United States should have intervened in Pol Pots actions instead of blindly bombing cambodian civilians in a planless offensive of a fake attempt to rescue cambodians.

But, it already happened, and we can't change that.
But we can change Saddam, a menace, an existing risk to his own people and to whom he sees as targets.

Frankly, America is not that great. It is a democracy, it is a respected democracy, but it has it's bad sides, like every other country.
Like Israel, like France, like Britain.
I didn't want Bush to rise in power, not Sr. and not Jr., but Jr. is currently doing a good job, more or less.
Environmental issues - less.
Foreign policy - more.

His inclusion of North Korea in the Axis of Evil only terrifies North Korea to depths of revealing their nuclear plans, and warming their relations with the west.

His threats on Iraq crumble the leadership out of fear, leaving out any stops they have put on Foreign Inspections, whether is still matters or not.

No, it's not a Brilliant policy. No, Bush surely isn't a political genius.

But from that to comparing him to Hussein? Come on, have some common sense.

cabalstudios

10-22-2002, 04:06 PM

IceBlaze: again loads of nonsense, you are so mis-informed, and fit everything to suit your own needs, and make youselves look innocent when you arent. Why is it when something points against you, you always say "left wing newspapers making up facts" when actually its the truth hiting you in the face.

Its is countries like the USA that make all the weapons of mass destruction to start with, and when you start to smell the dirt coming your way you start to panic.

end of story, your seeing everything from one eye not the other.

richy

10-22-2002, 04:21 PM

and of course cabal your completely unbiased? you have a totally fair view on the siuation.

Newbie

10-22-2002, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by cabalstudios
Why is it when something points against you, you always say "left wing newspapers making up facts" when actually its the truth hiting you in the face.

Think he listens to Rush Limbaugh same logic in his thinking.

cabalstudios

10-23-2002, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by richy
and of course cabal your completely unbiased? you have a totally fair view on the siuation.

Yes, as in my eyes they are all as bad as each other, and others worse, but.... the one that started this being the USA, is obviously the one to blame for all that has happened, since they started to create weapons of mass destruction, obviously with intention in mind to use, kill and supply.

Supplying wrong people with wrong intelligence, making the world NOT a safer place to live but a more DANGEROUS place to live.

Instead of totally scraping weapons, they make even more advanced weapons... and yet you blame others? lol :eek:

cabalstudios

10-23-2002, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by Newbie

Think he listens to Rush Limbaugh same logic in his thinking.

Sorry to dissapoint you but I dont even know who that so called dude above is, and I dont need to listen to others, when I've seen it happen for myself. :angry:

If it was up to me, i'd line up all leaders of all countries and sho*t them, as all they have done this century is turn it into a war zone, peace is not an option any more.

TechEGlobal

10-23-2002, 07:30 AM

Personally, I think Bush is on a power spree. Give him a little, he wants a lot.

Later Gater..

mind21_98

10-23-2002, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by cabalstudios
If it was up to me, i'd line up all leaders of all countries and sho*t them, as all they have done this century is turn it into a war zone, peace is not an option any more.

From what I'm seeing, only the US seems to want war now.

Hostkookster

10-23-2002, 10:22 AM

Ya, its somewhat economy driven...Bush doesn't know how to solve his countries economic problems and so he's ignoring them for now hoping war will fix it all up. Unless Bush does something about the economy he'll be out of a job in the next presidencial election 2 years down the road.

IceBlaZe

10-23-2002, 10:56 AM

IceBlaze: again loads of nonsense, you are so mis-informed, and fit everything to suit your own needs, and make youselves look innocent when you arent.

My misinformation is backed up with knowledge and fact.
My thesis does not lie in the liability of one single article about the US Testing chimicals in some point in history.
And no I'm not innocent, I'm known for my dangerous clipping ;)

Why is it when something points against you, you always say "left wing newspapers making up facts" when actually its the truth hiting you in the face.

Sorry you read it that way, I just wanted you to think twice and not believe anything you read in the newspapers.
Relating the issue, I am a leftist and I don't live in the United States.
I never said it was a leftist newspaper making up facts.
I just said that when you read criticism of the right in a left-winged newspaper, don't believe every word of it like it's Bible from Sinai. I know I don't.
Same goes for Rightist newspapers. Even more as a matter of fact.

Its is countries like the USA that make all the weapons of mass destruction to start with, and when you start to smell the dirt coming your way you start to panic.

"Countries like the USA" = The world?
There has not been one single country in world history, almost, that didn't try to make weapons of mass destruction.
Especially if it's a superpower.
So with that fact on our side, what matters is who is a threat to you, who is a proven danger, and who is your ally.
The USA is a threat to who? Afghanistan? Iraq? Bin Laden?
Perhaps.
Israel? France? Germany? Japan?
No.

end of story, your seeing everything from one eye not the other

I have a cylinder in one of my eyes, maybe it effects it ;)

IceBlaZe

10-23-2002, 11:03 AM

Think he listens to Rush Limbaugh same logic in his thinking.

We don't have his show over here.
And I am a leftist, Social Democrat, pro-Gore, pro-Peace.
I'm also a Green, if that helps.

Yes, as in my eyes they are all as bad as each other, and others worse, but....

This sentence was terrible. But at least it made no sense.

the one that started this being the USA, is obviously the one to blame for all that has happened, since they started to create weapons of mass destruction, obviously with intention in mind to use, kill and supply.

I'm sorry you are so ill-informed.
The Americans were not the only ones working in the atomic weapon. They were the first ones to acheive that capability.
Or then again maybe you preffer that Germany would have it earlier? Hitler to have more assisting weapons?
Perhaps, after all they are all as worse for you :rolleyes:

Supplying wrong people with wrong intelligence, making the world NOT a safer place to live but a more DANGEROUS place to live.

Long live Iraq, the Taliban, Bin Laden and the USSR.
The capitals of Safety ;)

Instead of totally scraping weapons, they make even more advanced weapons... and yet you blame others? lol

Blame others for what?
It's not unnatural for a country to take care of it's interests, amongst preventing hostile countries from acheiving nuclear capabilities.

If it was up to me, i'd line up all leaders of all countries and sho*t them, as all they have done this century is turn it into a war zone, peace is not an option any more.

Trivia: When was the last time Two democracies had a war one with the other?