posted 07-23-2003 12:57 PM            

Killings of Saddam's Sons Boosts Morale of U.S. ... but Not Democrats …..(Let’s see if Mech takes up their arguments as usual)

quote:

---

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean, who is seeking the Democrats' presidential nomination, complained, "I think in general the ends do not justify the means."

On the very day that Uday and Qusay were being taken out, another would-be president, Rep. Dick Gephardt, D-Mo., condemned President Bush's foreign policy as "machismo" and "arrogant unilateralism."
"
Foreign policy isn't a John Wayne movie, where we catch the bad guys, hoist a few cold ones, and then everything fades to black," Gephardt, who supported the war in Iraq, said Tuesday in remarks prepared for delivery to San Francisco Bar Association.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., another White House wannabe, complained, "The question is whether our diplomacy will be equally up to the task in assembling a coalition to create a real and lasting peace."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said that getting rid of Qusay and Uday was nothing compared to getting rid of Saddam. "Until we see him dead, know that he's dead - more importantly, until the Iraqi people know that he's dead - he is still the looming presence," he groused. "We have to get him."

---

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/23/102222.shtml

quote:

---

Tuesday, July 22, 2003 10:43 p.m. EDT

Rangel: U.S. Acted Illegally in Killing Uday and Qusay

“The U.S. acted illegally when its soldiers attacked and killed Uday and Qusay Hussein, a leading Democratic congressman complained on Tuesday, before mocking the military maneuver that succeeded in eliminating the brutal duo.”

---

http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/7/22/225219

posted 07-23-2003 01:18 PM            

But seriously folks, can there be ANY question now that Democrats/liberals/leftists (or what ever category you want to put them in) back evil, and go out of their way to keep evil people in power? Whatever is right and good for America and good for millions of people is bad for Democrats. Instead of praising the US military for taking out two sadistic mass murdering individuals who were likely paying assassins to make attacks on our soldiers, Democrats criticize the US military, even accusing the US military of murdering these two fine upstanding fruits from Saddam‘s loins. Typical... Shouldn't that be telling you liberals something? You support evil, and by doing so, you are obviously under the influence of evil....You criticize those that destroy evil. And people like Mech couldn't be working harder to get these same people who back Saddam and his sons in power....

posted 07-23-2003 01:36 PM            

quote:

---

Chalabi emphasized that he believed Qusay Hussein was a main factor behind the recent guerrilla attacks on U.S. troops:

“Qusay was a main force behind these attacks. I have information that he had as much as $25 million (to carry out the operations)," said Chalabi. He declined to name his sources.

---

It is reasonable to conclude that leftists/liberals/Bush haters/America haters and Democrats (same thing really) would not be for the deaths of Saddam’s sons because this may reduce the attacks on American soldiers, given the probability that these sons were paying assassins to make these attacks that we’ve been hearing so much about in the news lately. This is not good for Democrats/liberals/leftists/America/Bush haters, because they need these attacks to continue in order to whittle away at Bush’s credibility and incite American opposition for our troops being there. In other words, this is bad news for Democrats because their goals are EXACTLY in line with enemies of America and people who want America and Americans to die.

posted 07-23-2003 08:41 PM            

Tuesday, July 22, 2003 6:44 p.m. EDT
Dean Dismisses Uday, Qusay Kills

Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean wasn't exactly jumping for joy over the news that Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusay had been killed by U.S. forces in Iraq.

"It's a victory for the Iraqi people," he told reporters, "but it doesn't have any effect on whether we should or shouldn't have had a war."
In comments covered by the Associated Press, the disgruntled Democrat added, "I think in general the ends do not justify the means."

Despite the good news for America, Dean tried to stick to his sour-grapes message, complaining that his Democratic rivals shouldn't have supported the war.

posted 07-23-2003 08:46 PM            

Wow..i guess disagreeing with FART-Talker makes me a "Democrat"...

Ehhhh. NO Never voted for one. When are you going to get it through your thick TV BRAINWASHED 5cc CRANIUM that I never voted democrat.

I'm sure they will stick some wanna' be Pinochet type dictator in their places to be safe, pliant puppets for the New World Order and global monetary interests.

The Iraqis may actually get something worse.

Irradiating an entire country with DU and ruining their infastructure is not what I call "liberation".

I still say it was none of our buisness and Saddam was not a threat to the United States.

The Bush administrations LIES didn't help our credibility either.

posted 07-30-2003 02:25 PM            

Heck, we can even broaden that to say, ANY SUCCESSES anyone has on behalf of America is going to be attacked, especially when it involves military successes in our national interest.

It is quite obvious what side you leftists back...but they are dead now. Too bad for you. Good for the rest of us. What was it, 14 or so people who knew these guys well identified the bodies?....Most all of the people who positively identified the bodies were fellow Iraqis including Tariq Aziz...but the egg sucker believes every leftist lie on the internet. That web page is pathetic. I doesn't even make a rational or honest case. I know the truth about this one, and it is obvious where the article manipulates the truth. No mention, for example, that US soldiers were fired upon first.....and the resulting deaths were the result of defensive return fire. No mention of how the US objective WAS originally to try and to starve these guys out. We would have rather had them alive. It was six hours precisely because American soldiers DID want to take these guys alive...and it wasn't the constant fire that the article implies. It was sporadic fire over the course of 6 hours. If they wanted these guys dead, they would have just dropped a 2000 pound bomb on this place and be done with it...

So as you can see, right of the bat, the article is coloring the truth, omitting details to fit it's argument. It's transparently another leftist lie.

And Mech, you would have gotten thousands if not millions of Americans killed by ignoring the threat of Iraq, as Clinton did. You would throw away EVERYTHING the military has accomplished by leaving now. Notice you are not concerned about our troops in other areas of the world. Don’t we still have troops in Bosnia? What about our troops in South Korea? What about this stupid civil war the left wants to involve our troops in Liberia? No complaints there from Mech...as long as our national interests are not at stake.

The Baathist party would quickly move back in....and we'd have to do this thing all over again at a later date once they built back their terrorist organizations and another brutal regime....

posted 07-30-2003 03:17 PM            

No thnks..i want no part in that game.

The war was completely unjustified as we were not attacked. It was NONE of our buisness.

In fact...we should have never done buisness with Saddam in the first place.

Right Rummy?

The US did buisness with Iraq up untill the first Gulf war.

http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg02380.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/boles1010.html

posted 07-30-2003 03:33 PM            

In addition, note that Mech is saying he would wait for a nuclear attack or an attack with a biological weapon before he would act....IF he would act. Forget that Saddam had invaded the sovereign country of Kuwait...Forget that Saddam was regularly shooting at our pilots...Forget that Saddam was trying to control the world’s economies by controlling the oil (this is one of the main reasons he wanted an A-bomb so badly, according to Kadhir Hamza, Saddam's chief bomb maker…to control his Arab neighbors). But heck, forget all that. Let's wait until New York goes up in a mushroom cloud before we are justified in going to war. We need to be attacked FIRST...

Well aside from ignoring the fact that we WERE attacked first by Saddam, we have to look at history and consider that if we lived by Mech's criteria, Hitler would never have been taken out of power. Did Hitler ever attack the mainland of America, first? If not, then WWII was completely unjustified according to Mech, and Hitler‘s Nazis would probably be controlling the entire European continent now.

posted 07-30-2003 03:46 PM            

"--In addition, note that Mech is saying he would wait for a nuclear attack or an attack with a biological weapon before he would act.--"

Where are the "weapons of mass destruction"??

Basically..in a nutshell FART-TALKER is happy to let a soldier go to die as long as its not Fastwalker doing the fighting so the globalists can get rich claiming--- "this war is about Saddams weapons".

posted 07-30-2003 04:02 PM            

Are they in Syria? Are they still hidden in Iraq? Are they now in the hands of terrorists?...That's the problem, we just don't know, do we.

Your argument is the idiot’s argument though. It's like saying that because a drug smuggler dumped his cargo of drugs before the police caught him, then this doesn't justify the chase..

Like I said, my statement stands absolutely vindicated; You would wait until a nuke is used on NYC before you'd say there was justification for war. And even then you’d probably make the argument the Saddam had a right to bomb NYC and that it’s America’s fault due to American imperialism. Then if someone wants to use troops to defend America, you say you don’t want to put troops in harm’s way. Basically, your argument is to not use America’s troops for the purpose which they were intended.

Does it get any more non-sensical?

posted 07-30-2003 04:26 PM            

Looks like you are LYING to me.

But being a NEO-CON Bu$h supporter...In can see that you only think its a lie if its from the mouth of a Democrat.

Where is your evidence?

posted 07-30-2003 05:17 PM            

quote:

---

What nukes...Where?
Looks like you are LYING to me.

---

Mech...you are a hopeless case. Saddam MAY have had nukes. We didn't know that for sure. We knew he had a nuclear PROGRAM, according to testimony of numerous defectors such as Dr. Hamza. It was reasonable to conclude that in the years that inspectors were kicked out, that Iraq did have at least one working bomb, given that he was very close. Since Saddam did refused to account for what weapons he had, and continued to make overt threats, we could not take the risk that he hadn't progressed to this point, so the decision to take pre-emptive action was rational. It would have been irrational to ignore such a potential threat as Clinton did. But it wasn't on this basis alone that we took pre-emptive action. We DID KNOW that Saddam had a large cashes of biological and chemical WMDs that posed an imminent threat to his neighbors, to US troops and to the US via terrorist agency. The UN knew this. Clinton knew this…Congress knew this. Saddam admitted to having these weapons. Inspectors knew he had them. Lastly…he USED the damn things, so the Kurds know he had them. The only people who argue that Saddam didn’t posses these weapons are leftist idiots like Mech. When required to produce records as one of the resolution requirements that were part of the cease fire agreements for Gulf War I, Saddam refused to produce this documentation showing that these weapons were either destroyed or accounted for. In violating this resolution as well as all others, the basis for the cease fire for the first Gulf war was made null and void, and thus Gulf War I never ended. The justifications for going to war the first time were therefore still valid and in effect.

Where are you saying I've lied to you here Mech? Can you point it out? If anything, I've been amazingly consistent. I've been repeating the same thing in hundreds of posts, still you don't know what I've been saying yet? What does this say about your comprehension ability?

Anyway, I find this quote of yours to be an interesting slip;

quote:

---

But being a NEO-CON Bu$h supporter...In can see that you only think its a lie if its from the mouth of a Democrat.

---

So given that it's from your keyboard ("mouth") that you are referring to, I think anyone can see that you are admitting to being a Democrat here. Makes perfect sense, because you are their best propaganda spokesman. You repeat their lies and propaganda so dutifully and without the slightest though or question, it would only be reasonable to assume you are a Democrat. Now we have this admission.....

posted 07-30-2003 05:27 PM            

You are only SPECULATING now? A few months ago you stated that he had weapons. I guess you were lying.

Oh well.

We are happy to do buisness with Commie China that treats their people like slaves and tortures them but we had to "Liberate" a country that had a better standard of living than most arab countries even though their govt was yes...corrupt.

I see the hypocricy.

I see money bags.

Black gold indeed.

Mmm new military contracts too.

New..World...Order.

Meanwhile our troops are dying and getting sick.

posted 07-30-2003 05:55 PM            

quote:

---

One thing is certain..you are the biggest BULL$#!+ artist in this whole forum.

---

So you said, I keep asking you to point out an example.

quote:

---

You are only SPECULATING now? A few months ago you stated that he had weapons. I guess you were lying.

---

I just got through saying we KNOW for a FACT Saddam had WMDs. See above post, you imbecile. If I were you, I'd ask for my money back from whoever taught you to read. They did a piss poor job. Here's what I just got through saying;

"We DID KNOW that Saddam had a large cashes of biological and chemical WMDs that posed an imminent threat to his neighbors, to US troops and to the US via terrorist agency. The UN knew this. Clinton knew this…Congress knew this. Saddam admitted to having these weapons. Inspectors knew he had them. Lastly…he USED the damn things, so the Kurds know he had them. The only people who argue that Saddam didn’t posses these weapons are leftist idiots like Mech."

quote:

---

Meanwhile FART-talker says "kil em all!"

---

Show me where I've ever said this Mech. If you cannot, it will prove conclusively who is the liar here.

posted 07-30-2003 06:34 PM            

You bought Bush's BIG LIE...lock stock and barrel..

History will show.

posted 07-30-2003 06:51 PM            

FW:
self stroking,
self stroking,
self stroking.
self stroking;

Mech:
I hate Democrats but think Republicans are lying weasels also. (paraphrased)

FW, self stroking, self stroking....

Mech: You aren't listening...
FW: self stroking, self stroking....

Me:
Does anyone care about the truth?

"Florida Conservative Alliance Inc."*
is running local TV ads:
'Republicans should care about the Constitution, but...'
'Republicans support for caps on taxes are OK, but....'

They have come to understand that Republicans' ideals have been buried under the Bushes.

Wake up
Amerika!

Even self deluded Florida Republicans are beginning to understand that they have been sold out by the Bushes.

Espected responses:

Mech: Yes, but all Democrats are evil too!

FW: self stroking,...refusal to face reality, self stroking, parrot the RNC talking points,....self stroking....

* Goldwater Republicans who actually believe in principles and stands on issues, instead of Bush's pragmatic sell-out at all times.

"Democrats now support the US Constitution
while Republicans support a police state?

How Orwellian!"

posted 07-30-2003 07:02 PM            

shitoga sez...

posted 07-30-2003 07:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
what is it with liberals and the penis ?

shitoga sez...

FW self stroking,
self stroking,
self stroking.
self stroking; FW: self stroking,...refusal to face reality, self stroking, parrot the RNC talking points,....self stroking....

---

Stroking one's ego can be non physical.

$eeker,
"Immediately envisioning a penis responds:
with talking points accusations.

My response to $eeker:
Idiot! I used to be A Republican.
(Don't you understand I know all of your tricks from before I left the dark side and came into the light?)

$eeker,
Is it difficult to type one handed?
As you "Rush" to rebutt.

(bet that's got him going)

posted 07-30-2003 07:16 PM            

$eeker,
Is it difficult to type one handed?

I don't know maybe you could splain it for the class ?

btw, how's ollie doing ?

posted 07-30-2003 07:30 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:
if you would have meant "ego stroking" you would have typed it...we all know what you meant....filthy animal...

---

Never imagined anyone could envision a penis instead of ego stroking.
the failing of being a Liberal.
I apologize for forgetting what what you ultra conservatives obsess about: (Clinton's penis?)

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:

$eeker,
Is it difficult to type one handed?

I don't know maybe you could splain it for the class ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by theseeker:

btw, how's ollie doing ?

---

As I did while counseling for VVAW after my medical discharge.

Attack me at will Bivings RNC minions.

Ollie North is a decent loyal American who did what his criminal President and VP ordered him to do.

Anyone who condemns any serviceman
for obeying lawful (as Vince Foster initially explained)
orders

Deserves no respect from anyone.

Oliver North agreed to accept responsibility, but not blame.
Bush and (alzheimers unaware) Reagan
should have been impeached.
Oliver North should have gotten a medal.

He served his nation as ordered, with counsel telling him it was Constitutional to do so.

Foster died to break that link between cia/dod drug imports and (opium Poppy)Bush.

Insult me at will-
Ollie North is a decent loyal American!