Did the administration lie about WMDs - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

theking · 06-16-2003, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
This from an ex soldier, what corp were you in? Catering, Admin or Latrines.

FYI Cluless...I was a member of the elite 82nd Aiborne Division...an E-7 Platoon Sgt...Infantry.

mule · 06-16-2003, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

I am not here to prove anything to anyone...I use the board for my amusement...and do not give a fuck if you find any answer I give to any question to be credible. If you are interested use the fucking search feature...I get bored with rehashing the same shit over and over.

Smokescreens don't prove that you aren't pathfinder. If you really get so uptight about no-one believing you, you're gonna have to do better than that.

slavdogg · 06-16-2003, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by funkmaster

... may I call you ... donald ???

funkmaster unlike your friend Donald i've said it many times before the war started that we wont find any real WMD weapons in Iraq. And i have supported the war and still do.

the fall of Iraq was to bring major changes to the middle east and we're seeing them right now. Assad is running scared.
Iran is in trouble http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...reaking_9.html

Saudies are fighting terrorists inside their own country finally

and we're seeing some progress in Israel

if you cant see the bigger picture i can let you barrow my glasses

theking · 06-16-2003, 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mule

Smokescreens don't prove that you aren't pathfinder. If you really get so uptight about no-one believing you, you're gonna have to do better than that.

What makes you think that I get up tight about anything that is said on this board? It is white text on a black background and that is all you or anyone else on this board is.

mule · 06-16-2003, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

What makes you think that I get up tight about anything that is said on this board? It is white text on a black background and that is all you or anyone else on this board is.

theking · 06-16-2003, 02:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by slavdogg

funkmaster unlike your friend Donald i've said it many times before the war started that we wont find any real WMD weapons in Iraq. And i have supported the war and still do.

the fall of Iraq was to bring major changes to the middle east and we're seeing them right now. Assad is running scared.
Iran is in trouble http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...reaking_9.html

Saudies are fighting terrorists inside their own country finally

and we're seeing some progress in Israel

if you cant see the bigger picture i can let you barrow my glasses

The haters of America and/or Bush are blinded by their hatred and/or are just to stupid to see the big picture.

sacX · 06-16-2003, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

The haters of America and/or Bush are blinded by their hatred and/or are just to stupid to see the big picture.

we don't hate and we're not stupid. We know when we're being lied to. If there is a big picture please tell us honestly, we don't want the bullshit. The end justifies the means?.. sure sometimes

theking if you can't see how desperate Rummsfeld, Bush etc were to promote Hussein as a clear and present danger then you just can't read spin at all. You lapped it up, why don't you just admit it? In some ways it'd be nice to live in your innocent world where you can believe what you're told by the Whitehouse (oh no wait they're trying to scare you into following). I'd have thought by your age you'd be a bit more cynical.

Paul Markham · 06-16-2003, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

The haters of America and/or Bush are blinded by their hatred and/or are just to stupid to see the big picture.

Watch my lips dumbness.

We do not hate America, Americans or even Bush.

We hate the fact that he lied to us and continues to do so.

slavdogg
Then why did they not tell us this in the first place or were the French and the Russians the truthful ones?

Plus what right does a US President have to make major changes in a country 10,000 miles away?

Centurion · 06-16-2003, 03:41 AM

Those were some interesting "conclusions" ya posted.

"the fall of Iraq was to bring major changes to the middle east and we're seeing them right now. Assad is running scared."

Running where? Last time I looked he was still firmly in control of Syria and still ruthlessly running the country. That's "running"?
----------
"Iran is in trouble" The students & intellectuals have been protesting for years in Iran..yet the clerics remain firmly in control.
------------
"Saudies are fighting terrorists inside their own country finally"
Royal family doesn't like being made a fool. Arresting a few people is not exactly a large scale crackdown in terrorism.
-----------------------------
"and we're seeing some progress in Israel"
Huh..was it just my imagination that buses are being blown up left & right still and the Israelis are still lobbing missles into the midst of the Palestinians. THAT'S progress??

"if you cant see the bigger picture i can let you barrow my glasses

" No offense meant..but I think YOU need a new prescription for your eyes so YOU can see the big picture better.

Joe Sixpack · 06-16-2003, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

What makes you think that I get up tight about anything that is said on this board? It is white text on a black background and that is all you or anyone else on this board is.

It's actually white text on a grey background.

Centurion · 06-16-2003, 03:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
Watch my lips dumbness.

We do not hate America, Americans or even Bush.

We hate the fact that he lied to us and continues to do so.

slavdogg
Then why did they not tell us this in the first place or were the French and the Russians the truthful ones?

Plus what right does a US President have to make major changes in a country 10,000 miles away?

This does not matter to the "uptight right".
If you DISAGREE with THEIR policies, you are a "hater".
A hater of what though..LIES??

XYCash · 06-16-2003, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
being in Iraq? All of you haters keep accusing the President, Chaney, Rumsfeld, and Powell of lying about WMDs.

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees are reviewing intel reports. If they conclude that the intel from the various agencies indicated that Iraq had WMD's will you still say that President Bush and the others were lying?

From the state of the union address:
-----------------
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
------------------

From everything that I've read, that information was completely know by everyone in the administration to be bogus, yet still he spoke it in the State of the Union.

The Alibi · 06-16-2003, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
being in Iraq? All of you haters keep accusing the President, Chaney, Rumsfeld, and Powell of lying about WMDs.

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees are reviewing intel reports. If they conclude that the intel from the various agencies indicated that Iraq had WMD's will you still say that President Bush and the others were lying?

He had ten years to hide his stuff. It's going to take time to find everything. Of course the whiny liberals would like the US population to think otherwise.

That fucking pervasive liberal hegemony at work!

slavdogg · 06-16-2003, 04:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly

slavdogg
Then why did they not tell us this in the first place or were the French and the Russians the truthful ones?

they did, you just didnt listen well enough
The russians and French were after their own self interests

>> Plus what right does a US President have to make major changes in a country 10,000 miles away?

Congress gave him the right, twice !
We were enforcing 18 UN resolutions that Saddam failed to comply with.

XYCash · 06-16-2003, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Alibi

Of course the whiny liberals would like the US population to think otherwise.

That fucking pervasive liberal hegemony at work!

Yeah, check out what this whiny liberal said:

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

- John Dean, former Counsel to President Nixon

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030606.html

Gutterboy · 06-16-2003, 04:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Alibi

He had ten years to hide his stuff. It's going to take time to find everything. Of course the whiny liberals would like the US population to think otherwise.

That fucking pervasive liberal hegemony at work!

I have a serious question.

I pasted a Rumsfeld quote earlier in this thread where he stated on March 30th, 2003 that they knew where the weapons were hidden.

Obviously that makes what you said above false.

What I'm curious about is.. what happened when you saw the quote which allowed you to believe that something completely contradictory is true?

Are you a selective amnesiac? Do you not even remember seeing it? Does your brain automatically filter out things you don't want to be true?

Paul Markham · 06-16-2003, 04:36 AM

Is it at all possible that he could of been bluffing about them. He was definitely bluffing about the size and effectiveness of his army.

My cousin has just returned and said the army he saw was a joke, no working artillery, tanks and most of the solidiers demoralised and ready to run.

Given that situation and with Iran on the border was Saddam bluffing his mighty army and resources?

With a sworn enemy on his doorstep it's possible.

sacX · 06-16-2003, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by slavdogg

they did, you just didnt listen well enough
The russians and French were after their own self interests

>> Plus what right does a US President have to make major changes in a country 10,000 miles away?

Congress gave him the right, twice !
We were enforcing 18 UN resolutions that Saddam failed to comply with.

Is it time to enforce the 20 bazillion UN resolutions Israel is in breach of? Please gimme a break, enforcing UN resolutions was the least of the reasons for invading Iraq

Paul Markham · 06-16-2003, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by slavdogg

they did, you just didnt listen well enough
The russians and French were after their own self interests

>> Plus what right does a US President have to make major changes in a country 10,000 miles away?

Congress gave him the right, twice !
We were enforcing 18 UN resolutions that Saddam failed to comply with.

And Bush has who's interest at heart? That is the funniest thing on this thread.

Then the UN should have given the go, not Bush. The UN actually said no.

Simple isn't it.

XYCash · 06-16-2003, 04:49 AM

And we've set an example for the world now. As many said about the pre-emptive war idea, it would lead to others adopting the same stance:

EU Backs Possible Use of Force Against WMD Threats
By REUTERS

Filed at 7:23 a.m. ET

LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - The European Union, in a significant shift toward U.S. thinking, said Monday the use of force might be necessary where diplomacy failed to address threats from weapons of mass destruction.

EU foreign ministers endorsed a strategy to combat the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that for the first time included a reference to possible military action against states or terrorist groups that acquired such arms.

``When these measures (including political dialogue and diplomatic pressure) have failed, coercive measures under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and international law (sanctions, selective or global, interceptions of shipments and, as appropriate, the use of force) could be envisioned,'' it said.

directfiesta · 06-16-2003, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Deciphering intel is not a science (this is real life and not a movie)...it is an art and is wrong more often than it is 100% correct.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/...978593,00.html

Quote:

Evidence about that missing stockpile of weapons of mass destruction was similarly unreliable. "It was clear before the war that some of the evidence on WMD coming out of Britain and America was garbage," he says. "It was being skewed by political information from Iraqis who were trying to encourage a US invasion."

Only half-jokingly, he talks about sitting at his desk and rapidly directing Pentagon-originated intelligence reports to the ONA rubbish bin.

l

Seems like the aussies could se it was " garbage"....

Now, If you WANT to be conviced or WANT to convice somebody otherwise, then you can make beleive it is GOLD mainly if you do not show or doctor the evidence,,,

TheKing, as days goes by, not only the US ( who refused the help of UN specialist ...) don't find even traces of WMD but the world community finds evidence of lies and deceipt.

Obviously, all means were good to this hawk administration to PREVAIL...

theking · 06-16-2003, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta

Seems like the aussies could se it was " garbage"....

Now, If you WANT to be conviced or WANT to convice somebody otherwise, then you can make beleive it is GOLD mainly if you do not show or doctor the evidence,,,

TheKing, as days goes by, not only the US ( who refused the help of UN specialist ...) don't find even traces of WMD but the world community finds evidence of lies and deceipt.

Obviously, all means were good to this hawk administration to PREVAIL...

The world community is free to find what they think is evidence of lies and deception...but in the US it will be members of Congress that will be the determiners of evidence of lies and deception. Members of the Intelligence Select Committees are reviewing intel reports and if they conclude that lies and/or deception has been committed by the administration there will then be full blown investigations by the House and the Senate.

theking · 06-16-2003, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by XYCash
And we've set an example for the world now. As many said about the pre-emptive war idea, it would lead to others adopting the same stance:

EU Backs Possible Use of Force Against WMD Threats
By REUTERS

Filed at 7:23 a.m. ET

LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - The European Union, in a significant shift toward U.S. thinking, said Monday the use of force might be necessary where diplomacy failed to address threats from weapons of mass destruction.

EU foreign ministers endorsed a strategy to combat the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that for the first time included a reference to possible military action against states or terrorist groups that acquired such arms.

``When these measures (including political dialogue and diplomatic pressure) have failed, coercive measures under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and international law (sanctions, selective or global, interceptions of shipments and, as appropriate, the use of force) could be envisioned,'' it said.

Good thinking on the part of the "EU foreign ministers".

Honeyslut · 06-16-2003, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mule

Quoting yourself and two unnamed sources to prove that you aren't pathfinder makes your answer extremely credible, yes.

jimmyf is one of them

ADL Colin · 06-16-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly

Plus what right does a US President have to make major changes in a country 10,000 miles away?

Do you not live on Earth? Might is right.

theking · 06-16-2003, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by charly
And Bush has who's interest at heart? That is the funniest thing on this thread.

Then the UN should have given the go, not Bush. The UN actually said no.

Simple isn't it.

Clueless...would you consider quoting the resolution where the UN said no?

mule · 06-16-2003, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

Clueless...would you consider quoting the resolution where the UN said no?

How's about you quoting the resolution where they gave the go-ahead, pathfinder?

SexySarah · 06-16-2003, 11:27 AM

I'm puzzled.

Who actually reads theking's posts?

rooster · 06-16-2003, 11:29 AM

did you know the only two millitary actions the un ever supported in its history were korea and gulf war 1. And korea only passed because the Russians didnt show up to vote that day.

But im sure the 800,000 rhwandans that got killed think the un is neato.

mule · 06-16-2003, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SexySarah
I'm puzzled.

Who actually reads theking's posts?

I do. They're hilarious

SleazyDream · 06-16-2003, 11:38 AM

The Alibi · 06-16-2003, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Gutterboy

I have a serious question.

I pasted a Rumsfeld quote earlier in this thread where he stated on March 30th, 2003 that they knew where the weapons were hidden.

Obviously that makes what you said above false.

What I'm curious about is.. what happened when you saw the quote which allowed you to believe that something completely contradictory is true?

Are you a selective amnesiac? Do you not even remember seeing it? Does your brain automatically filter out things you don't want to be true?

Quote:

Originally posted by Gutterboy

We know where the WMD's are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003

-------------

Just when did this massive movement of weapons take place, and how did it escape our notice?

Veiled ad-hominem attacks are uncalled for. Let's not turn this into anything personal.

Realize the area around Tikrit and Baghdad are huge areas. Ten years is a long time to be able to move things. Do you are I know anything personally about the size of these weapons of mass destruction? Would they be any bigger than the hundreds of millions of dollars we recently found in the walls of various buildings that we had no idea about? Can they be loaded up in a truck and carted to wherever? Do we know the contents of every truck coming and going to and from the aforementioned areas?

Your criticism of what I say is based on certain assumptions that I do not necessarily agree with.

Centurion · 06-16-2003, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by XYCash
And we've set an example for the world now. As many said about the pre-emptive war idea, it would lead to others adopting the same stance:

EU Backs Possible Use of Force Against WMD Threats
By REUTERS

And the very scary thing is that if Bush & Co. are not called on the carpet for this, it does set a precedent for not only the United States but any country to attack anyone PERCEIVED to be an enemy capable of inflicting harm.

But in that scenario, one could say ANY testube is potentially a WMD as almost anything "nasty" could be developed in it!

Joesho · 06-16-2003, 12:18 PM

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE!

SexySarah · 06-16-2003, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

FYI Cluless...I was a member of the elite 82nd Aiborne Division...an E-7 Platoon Sgt...Infantry.

Infantry.

Isn't that another name for cannon fodder?

Centurion · 06-16-2003, 12:27 PM

To those who say: "Ok, maybe there were no WMDs and no threat to the U.S. directly, but at least we got rid of Saddam, so I'm glad we invaded Iraq"..in others words "Alls well that ends well."

Warfare in Iraq is far from over. The United States is acting like "We're supposed to do something with this country now that we conquered it?" Ambushes, protests, and bitter tension exists between the people of Iraq & the troops/U.S.

The number of troops in Iraq are INCREASING, not decreasing. That's because the troops have now become policemen. But even with the current number, that country is no where close to being security stable for its people.

And are the people of Iraq better off than before? In many ways they are not. 80% of the citizenry are unemployed. Many of those that are employed haven't been paid in 3 months. The conditions are ripe for disease and hunger throughout the country.

If you think Iraq is better off now than before (and I'm not arguing that Saddam was a good despot), look at how "well" Afghanistan is doing 1 1/2 years after the war there.
Warlords effectively control all of the country save Kabul. And even in Kabul, no one in the govt dares go out unless under heavy guard with armor.
Health and education is still desperately lacking throughout the country.
And this is one of the most telling stats:Since the war ended, not ONE MILE of new road has been paved or repaired since we bombed the crap out of everything.

We're in for a very long stay in Iraq. A very long & bloody stay.

Had a typo to edit.

theking · 06-16-2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mule

How's about you quoting the resolution where they gave the go-ahead, pathfinder?

1441 was the last one...but there were also several prior to that.

leedsfan · 06-16-2003, 12:59 PM

i'd like to see a picture of theKing in his uniform many moons ago, in the 82nd airborne...

maybe he could post one for us.

I bet i could find it again with a 2 minute google search...non-photoshopped to change the name on the badge.

where were you based? show us some proof. I heard Bushs' intel puts you in the 82nd...lol.

mule · 06-16-2003, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

1441 was the last one...but there were also several prior to that.

LOL, we knew you can't read, you didn't have to prove it.
Read it again and tell me which code they used to give the US the go-ahead to invade Iraq, because unfortunately I'm not as high up as you on the intel ladder. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

theking · 06-16-2003, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mule

LOL, we knew you can't read, you didn't have to prove it.
Read it again and tell me which code they used to give the US the go-ahead to invade Iraq, because unfortunately I'm not as high up as you on the intel ladder. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

"Finally, it warns Iraq that "it will face serious consequences" if it continues to violate its obligations as spelled out in the resolution."

The US provided the "serious consequenses".

theking · 06-16-2003, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leedsfan
i'd like to see a picture of theKing in his uniform many moons ago, in the 82nd airborne...

maybe he could post one for us.

I bet i could find it again with a 2 minute google search...non-photoshopped to change the name on the badge.

where were you based? show us some proof. I heard Bushs' intel puts you in the 82nd...lol.

Do a fucking search...I will not rehash something that has been repeated many times. In the meantime.

mule · 06-16-2003, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leedsfan
i'd like to see a picture of theKing in his uniform many moons ago, in the 82nd airborne...

maybe he could post one for us.

I bet i could find it again with a 2 minute google search...non-photoshopped to change the name on the badge.

where were you based? show us some proof. I heard Bushs' intel puts you in the 82nd...lol.

I found one:

theking · 06-16-2003, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mule

I found one:

I am amused.

Joesho · 06-16-2003, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mule

LOL, we knew you can't read, you didn't have to prove it.
Read it again and tell me which code they used to give the US the go-ahead to invade Iraq, because unfortunately I'm not as high up as you on the intel ladder. http://usinfo.state.gov/topical/pol/terror/02110803.htm

Good hit Mule!

ADL Colin · 06-16-2003, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

And the very scary thing is that if Bush & Co. are not called on the carpet for this, it does set a precedent for not only the United States but any country to attack anyone PERCEIVED to be an enemy capable of inflicting harm.

Precedent? Take a look at the list of hundreds of wars fought in the past two hundred years and tell me what the general precedent is already. What was the cause of the India/Pakistan, China/Tibet, Czechoslavakia/Russia, Iran/Iraq, France/Lebanon, USA/Panama, or hundreds of other major international or minor tribal conflicts in the world?

I have news for you. Every war was started by someone who from their point-of-view had a legitimate reason and most were started for reasons no better than the Iraq/US one. Your really think there is something new going on here?

Centurion · 06-16-2003, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Colin

Precedent? Take a look at the list of hundreds of wars fought in the past two hundred years and tell me what the general precedent is already. What was the cause of the India/Pakistan, China/Tibet, Czechoslavakia/Russia, Iran/Iraq, France/Lebanon, USA/Panama, or hundreds of other major international or minor tribal conflicts in the world?

I have news for you. Every war was started by someone who from their point-of-view had a legitimate reason and most were started for reasons no better than the Iraq/US one. Your really think there is something new going on here?

Frankly I'm not that concerned about the other countries. It's the United States, as a citizen that I'm most concerned about.

I'm not willing to give Bush & co. a blank check to go to war whenever THEY decide a potential threat exists.

It's why we call this a DEMOCRACY!

ADL Colin · 06-16-2003, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

It's why we call this a DEMOCRACY!

It's a Republic. You vote for your leaders and they decide when and for what reasons to go to war or not. It's never been different except that more of the population can vote for their representatives than ever before. Then, unless the US was attacked, the other party complains about it. Republicans complained about Clinton bombing Iraq and Kosovo. Democrats complained about Iraq.

It's a very old political ritual and it's not going to end anytime soon.

Honeyslut · 06-16-2003, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mule

I found one:

oh my

ADL Colin · 06-16-2003, 07:21 PM

I'll take "What is the Gulf of Tonkin?" for $500, Centurion.

Hell, the president from just one administration in the past was accused of lying about the number of Albanians that were slaughered in order to justify military action in Kosovo.

All you're doing is repeating the past.

Things are as they have always been. No worse and no crazier.

FlyingIguana · 06-16-2003, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

No one from any intelligence agency has publically said that they were "under tremendous pressure by the administration to find WMD evidence that wasn't there". This is a media report using un-named "sources".

so its a media conspiracy?

06-16-2003, 04:36 AM	#67
Paul Markham Too old to care Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: On the sofa, watching TV or doing my jigsaws. Posts: 52,943	Is it at all possible that he could of been bluffing about them. He was definitely bluffing about the size and effectiveness of his army. My cousin has just returned and said the army he saw was a joke, no working artillery, tanks and most of the solidiers demoralised and ready to run. Given that situation and with Iran on the border was Saddam bluffing his mighty army and resources? With a sworn enemy on his doorstep it's possible. __________________ Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500. PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

06-16-2003, 04:49 AM	#70
XYCash Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: here and there Posts: 582	And we've set an example for the world now. As many said about the pre-emptive war idea, it would lead to others adopting the same stance: EU Backs Possible Use of Force Against WMD Threats By REUTERS Filed at 7:23 a.m. ET LUXEMBOURG (Reuters) - The European Union, in a significant shift toward U.S. thinking, said Monday the use of force might be necessary where diplomacy failed to address threats from weapons of mass destruction. EU foreign ministers endorsed a strategy to combat the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons that for the first time included a reference to possible military action against states or terrorist groups that acquired such arms. ``When these measures (including political dialogue and diplomatic pressure) have failed, coercive measures under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter and international law (sanctions, selective or global, interceptions of shipments and, as appropriate, the use of force) could be envisioned,'' it said. __________________ XYCash Gay Affiliate Programs - Making Money For Webmasters Since 1999 - click here to sign up

06-16-2003, 11:29 AM	#79
rooster Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 2,384	did you know the only two millitary actions the un ever supported in its history were korea and gulf war 1. And korea only passed because the Russians didnt show up to vote that day. But im sure the 800,000 rhwandans that got killed think the un is neato. Last edited by rooster; 06-16-2003 at 11:31 AM..

06-16-2003, 11:38 AM	#81
SleazyDream I'm here for SPORT Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Phone # (401) 285-0696 Posts: 41,470	<img src=http://www.sleazydream.com/banners/yard/027.jpg> __________________ This dog, is dog, a dog, good dog, way dog, to dog, keep dog, an dog, idiot dog, busy dog, for dog, 20 dog, seconds dog! Now read without the word dog.

06-16-2003, 12:18 PM	#84
Joesho want to get in shape Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: on the lake Posts: 12,329	LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE! __________________ Got any domains to sell? I proudly host all my stuff at www.rackco.com

06-16-2003, 03:41 AM	#59
Centurion Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: SeATtle Posts: 6,033	Those were some interesting "conclusions" ya posted. "the fall of Iraq was to bring major changes to the middle east and we're seeing them right now. Assad is running scared." Running where? Last time I looked he was still firmly in control of Syria and still ruthlessly running the country. That's "running"? ---------- "Iran is in trouble" The students & intellectuals have been protesting for years in Iran..yet the clerics remain firmly in control. ------------ "Saudies are fighting terrorists inside their own country finally" Royal family doesn't like being made a fool. Arresting a few people is not exactly a large scale crackdown in terrorism. ----------------------------- "and we're seeing some progress in Israel" Huh..was it just my imagination that buses are being blown up left & right still and the Israelis are still lobbing missles into the midst of the Palestinians. THAT'S progress?? "if you cant see the bigger picture i can let you barrow my glasses " No offense meant..but I think YOU need a new prescription for your eyes so YOU can see the big picture better.

06-16-2003, 11:27 AM	#78
SexySarah So Fucking Banned Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 1,076	I'm puzzled. Who actually reads theking's posts?

06-16-2003, 12:27 PM	#86
Centurion Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: SeATtle Posts: 6,033	To those who say: "Ok, maybe there were no WMDs and no threat to the U.S. directly, but at least we got rid of Saddam, so I'm glad we invaded Iraq"..in others words "Alls well that ends well." Warfare in Iraq is far from over. The United States is acting like "We're supposed to do something with this country now that we conquered it?" Ambushes, protests, and bitter tension exists between the people of Iraq & the troops/U.S. The number of troops in Iraq are INCREASING, not decreasing. That's because the troops have now become policemen. But even with the current number, that country is no where close to being security stable for its people. And are the people of Iraq better off than before? In many ways they are not. 80% of the citizenry are unemployed. Many of those that are employed haven't been paid in 3 months. The conditions are ripe for disease and hunger throughout the country. If you think Iraq is better off now than before (and I'm not arguing that Saddam was a good despot), look at how "well" Afghanistan is doing 1 1/2 years after the war there. Warlords effectively control all of the country save Kabul. And even in Kabul, no one in the govt dares go out unless under heavy guard with armor. Health and education is still desperately lacking throughout the country. And this is one of the most telling stats:Since the war ended, not ONE MILE of new road has been paved or repaired since we bombed the crap out of everything. We're in for a very long stay in Iraq. A very long & bloody stay. Had a typo to edit. Last edited by Centurion; 06-16-2003 at 12:29 PM..

06-16-2003, 12:59 PM	#88
leedsfan leedsfan Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: purgatory Posts: 2,564	i'd like to see a picture of theKing in his uniform many moons ago, in the 82nd airborne... maybe he could post one for us. I bet i could find it again with a 2 minute google search...non-photoshopped to change the name on the badge. where were you based? show us some proof. I heard Bushs' intel puts you in the 82nd...lol. __________________ Advertise on Sex2ube.com New Tube Content Packages Save $10K +

06-16-2003, 07:21 PM	#99
ADL Colin Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tube Titans, USA Posts: 11,929	I'll take "What is the Gulf of Tonkin?" for $500, Centurion. Hell, the president from just one administration in the past was accused of lying about the number of Albanians that were slaughered in order to justify military action in Kosovo. All you're doing is repeating the past. Things are as they have always been. No worse and no crazier. __________________ Adult Date Link - $50 PPS starting NOW! -- good and JUICY! skype = "adultdatelink"