09-12-2003, 07:38 AM
|
|
|
I'd rather be on my boat.
Industry Role:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 9,748
|
Quote:
Originally posted by 12clicks
Centurion, my liberal lacky, here are some facts. I'm sure you'll ignore them (its the liberal way) but here you go any way.
after 9/11 the united states attacked afghanistan, the home of terorrists and their supporters. ALL taliban and alqueda members are now dead or on the run.
Since then, the only attacks from osama bin laden have been poorly scripted vhs tapes. If you'd like, I'll attack him with a vhs tape of my own.
in 1991, Iraq attacked the peaceful country and friend of the US kuwait. As a result, we defeated iraq. Part of their surrender agreement was disarmorment and verification by inspectors. After 8 years of liberal coddling by clinton and the UN, Bush laid down the law. Why did bush take such a tough stance? because of what we know happened when clinton passed up his chance to eliminate osama bin laden.
The UN (whom you liberals follow lockstep) knew there were tons of chemical weapons unaccounted for 10 years after iraq agreed to disarm. Now I understand that you dopey liberals think that if we gave them just another 10 years they would have come clean but as you see, the bungling of liberal president clinton and the UN DID not force iraq to turn over their WMDs it just gave them 10 years to hide them.
(oops, the UN conveniently forgets that little fact when denouncing the US)
could it be because the UN is not a target of terrorism? could it be as long as the US is the target the rest of the world doesn't really care?
Lets see, you liberal bozos like to say iraq has no ties to terrorism. how about this:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84265,00.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...5/wnidal25.xml
you remember abu abbas and abu nidal don't you centurion? I know it doesn't fit in your defense of saddam and iraq but the liberal party line rarely has use for the truth.
liberal fools, here's another example of why we went to iraq from your beloved liberal bastion PBS:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...defectors.html
to quote:
n 1995, Saddam Hussein actually appeared to be winning in his strategy of cheat and retreat. He had actually managed to hide so many of his weapons that many of the U.N. weapons inspectors thought that he had turned over most of them, and were prepared to make that kind of recommendation. And it was only on the defection of his son-in-law and cousin [Kamel] that the international community realized how much he really still had. The whole crisis actually might have ended at that point, if it hadn't been for that very ... defection. ...
so, if not because of *ONE* bit of luck (saddam's son in law's defection) the UN and the hey, saddam is really a good guy" europeans would have given iraq a clean bill of health about WMDs only to be fooled again.
Now you liberal dopes can PRETEND that the above is NOT evidence but it would only prove your stupidity.
I'm sure most of you liberals need a 9/11 every other year to give you just enough backbone to ALMOST go out and attack terrorism, but I don't
once was enough.
|
At last....someone who didn't get their history lessons from comic book! It's chilling to me how many people on this board have no memory and no source of information outside either liberal popular media with agendas, (US and worldwide), or wacky consipiracy theory websites! It's become bizarre to me how people can't remember anything past 2 years ago!
(applause!!!)  |
|
|