Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Republicans say the darndest things!Follow

#77 Jul 13 2010 at 11:10 AM Rating: Decent
knoxxsouthy wrote:
So yeah they did have them.


You should have kept reading.

Quote:
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
#78 Jul 13 2010 at 11:14 AM Rating: Decent
Kael,

Quote:
are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war


So he had different WMD's than we originally thought. That's what you've got? Really? Smiley: laugh
#79 Jul 13 2010 at 11:17 AM Rating: Decent
knoxxsouthy wrote:
So he had different WMD's than we originally thought. That's what you've got? Really? Smiley: laugh


Considering it was the entier base for the war, and the ******** you've been feading yourself, it's pretty relevant.
#80 Jul 13 2010 at 11:19 AM Rating: Decent
Kael,

I'm just thrilled to finally hear a radical liberal admit they had WMD's.
#81 Jul 13 2010 at 11:55 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
I didn't say every world leader; I did say every nation. Do you even see the difference?

Of course I do. One is meaningful because it directly related to whether or not a nation will go to war, enforce sanctions or undertake other actions. The other is a meaningless attempt to save face as you say "I bet someone in Ethiopia thought it was true!"

Quote:
Quote:
"Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent. Despite many efforts to locate and destroy Iraq's pre-Gulf War chemical munitions, filled and unfilled pre-Gulf War chemical munitions are assessed to still exist."
Quote:
Offering the official administration response to FOX News, a senior Defense Department official pointed out that the chemical weapons were not in useable conditions.

"This does not reflect a capacity that was built up after 1991," the official said, adding the munitions "are not the WMDs this country and the rest of the world believed Iraq had, and not the WMDs for which this country went to war."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

They were, however, shells the inspectors expected to find as a result of weapon caching during previous military campaigns in Iraq. And when the official response from the Bush administration is "These aren't what we were talking about", it's pretty funny to see people like you cling to it and say "Yes! Yes! Those were the ones!!"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Jul 13 2010 at 12:02 PM Rating: Decent
Jophed,

Quote:
it's pretty funny to see people like you cling to it and say "Yes! Yes! Those were the ones!!"


I never said that. I did say they found WMD's. I did say they broke the ceasefire agreement Why do you keep saying they didn't?

#83 Jul 13 2010 at 12:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Why do you keep saying they didn't?

You must have me confused with someone else. I never commented on the ceasefire.

Iraq had WMDs in the same way a guy with an empty wallet, closed out bank account and thirty-four cents in his couch cushions has money.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Jul 13 2010 at 12:19 PM Rating: Decent
Jophiel wrote:
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Why do you keep saying they didn't?

You must have me confused with someone else. I never commented on the ceasefire.


That was me.

When you continue to bomb someone during a ceasefire, the word is as meaningful as doing jack and sh*t after 6 months, then declaring Mission Accomplished. It's language for assholes.



Edited, Jul 13th 2010 1:23pm by Kaelesh
#85 Jul 13 2010 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Of course, the war in Afghanistan is much more sensible than the one in Iraq. Because, after all, they have WMD's. attacked the USA. The threatened to attack the USA. Threatened their neighbours. Osama bin Laden lives there Al Qeada live there...

Ummm...No. I got nothing.



____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#86 Jul 13 2010 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
*pat*pat*
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#87 Jul 13 2010 at 6:39 PM Rating: Good
paulsol wrote:
Of course, the war in Afghanistan is much more sensible than the one in Iraq. Because, after all, they have WMD's. attacked the USA. The threatened to attack the USA. Threatened their neighbours. Osama bin Laden lives there Al Qeada live there...

Ummm...No. I got nothing.



Opium?
#88 Jul 13 2010 at 11:17 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Paula,
you're filled with pure jealousy.




Yeah. Thats it. I wish I was just like you......

Screenshot


Its the logical, understanding and... rational side of your country that I admire the most.

I so wish I'd taken the green card whilst I had the chance. I could still be living there today!
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#89 Jul 13 2010 at 11:18 PM Rating: Decent
Paulsol wrote:
Of course, the war in Afghanistan is much more sensible than the one in Iraq. Because, after all, their government, at the time of the invasion, was harboring the terrorists directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11.


Fixed that for ya, bro.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#90 Jul 13 2010 at 11:29 PM Rating: Good
paulsol wrote:
I so wish I'd taken the green card whilst I had the chance. I could still be living there today!
And helping to lead the revolution!

Oh, wait, no, you'd still be a completely balls-less pussy. Carry on with living in the part of the world where 90% of the mammals failed evolution.
#91 Jul 13 2010 at 11:31 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
Paulsol wrote:
Of course, the war in Afghanistan is much more sensible than the one in Iraq. Because, after all, their government, at the time of the invasion, was harboring the terrorists directly responsible for the attacks on 9/11.


Fixed that for ya, bro.


So the full scale military invasion, industrial scale bombing and 9 year occupation of Afghanistan led to the arrest of the people responsible for 9/11?

FUck! Who knew? It hasn't been mentioned in the press...

Hey, you guys should invade and occupy Saudi Arabia next! You could blame it on their treatment of women in case revenge for financing 9/11 isn't enough for you.



____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#92 Jul 13 2010 at 11:55 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
And, hell, SA actually has oil!


They still have oil, right?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#93 Jul 13 2010 at 11:59 PM Rating: Good
****
4,158 posts
Debalic wrote:
And, hell, SA actually has oil!


They still have oil, right?



C'mon dude. Keep up! Its not about the oil...
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#94 Jul 14 2010 at 4:24 AM Rating: Decent
Quote:
So the full scale military invasion, industrial scale bombing and 9 year occupation of Afghanistan led to the arrest of the people responsible for 9/11?

****! Who knew? It hasn't been mentioned in the press...


[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda wrote:
Wiki[/link]]By the end of 2004, the U.S. government proclaimed that two-thirds of the most senior al-Qaeda figures from 2001 had been captured and interrogated by the CIA: Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri in 2002;[136] Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003; and Saif al Islam el Masry in 2004.[citation needed] Mohammed Atef and several others were killed.


2/3rds of em were arrested and/or killed, which has been widely reported in the media. Listen, I get that you're as rabidly anti-war as Varrus is anti-liberal, but you don't seem stupid. I understand that the vast majority of Afghanis as well as much of the Taliban had little or nothing to do with 9/11, but the Taliban did harbor the folks who did.

I'm sorry this truth is inconvenient for you.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#95 Jul 14 2010 at 5:37 AM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
Omegavegeta wrote:
I understand that the vast majority of Afghanis as well as much of the Taliban had little or nothing to do with 9/11, but the Taliban did harbor the folks who did.


Its deeply touching that you understand that the vast majority of them had nothing whatsoever to do with attacking the US and have therefore suffered for so long through absolutely no fault of their own. Really. I'm sure it makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside to know that

But.

The money for 9/11 was raised in the ME.

The people were trained in Pakistan, Europe and the US.

Those people were mostly from Saudi.

OBL was in a military Hospital in Pakistan on the day of the attack.

Even your own Intelligence agencies dont believe theres more than a few dozen AlQaeda types left in Afghanistan. OBL for sure not.

100 NATO troops killed last month. 100 Billion dollars a year at least being spent to hunt down a few dozen baddies?

Is this really the best use of people and resources in pursuit of fixing the problems that are present in the world?

C'mon. Really. Why are you defending this?


____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#96 Jul 14 2010 at 7:32 AM Rating: Decent
Paula,

Quote:
Hey, you guys should invade and occupy Saudi Arabia next!


Maybe we should liberate the UK. After all they tend to like releasing homicidal mass murdering muslims because BP doesn't want anything to stand in the way of the oil contracts they're trying to finalize with the associates of this homicidal mass murdering muslim.



http://www.financialexpress.com/news/now-bp-involved-in-terrorists-release/646394/
#97 Jul 14 2010 at 7:35 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
paulsol wrote:
Debalic wrote:
And, hell, SA actually has oil!


They still have oil, right?


C'mon dude. Keep up! Its not about the oil...


Well...maybe it should be. Fuck the Saudis, annex SA and free oil! That's got to be better than this fucked-up song and dance we perpetuate to keep our oil interests in line.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#98 Jul 14 2010 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
Paulsol wrote:
Why are you defending this?


Because I don't think my country should give back Afghanistan to the people who will use it as a base of operations to attack the US. I'd rather give it the people of Afghanistan chance to run things first.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#99 Jul 14 2010 at 8:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
Its deeply touching that you understand that the vast majority of them had nothing whatsoever to do with attacking the US and have therefore suffered for so long through absolutely no fault of their own.

This is making the assumption that the vast majority of people in Afghanistan consider themselves to be suffering as a result of the invasion.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Jul 14 2010 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
****
4,158 posts
knoxxsouthy wrote:
Paula,



Maybe we should liberate the UK.




Feel free. I have a suspicion that an average British hooligan beer monster will rip your head off and shIt down your neck without spilling his pint of Kronenbourg tho.

Omegavageta wrote:

Because I don't think my country should give back Afghanistan to the people who will use it as a base of operations to attack the US. I'd rather give it the people of Afghanistan chance to run things first.


1. Afghanistan isn't yours to give. Where on Earth do you get the idea that you are entitled to give Afghanistan back to the Afghanis?

2. The people your country is fighting are the Afghanis. What are you going to do? Kill them all?

3.By 'attack the USA', what do you mean? No attack came from Afghanistan. Planning for an attack could be carried out anywhere in the world, and the same for training. Theres nothing special about Afghanistan that makes it the ideal base of operations for attacking anyone. Europe is far better. At least they have 24 hour electricity and a functioning telephone/internet system.

4. By 'base of operations', what do you actually picture in your head? Hi-tech facilities with satelite dishes and hangars full of equipment and orderly barracks full of highly traine commandoes? If so, you need to stop watching Hollywood movies for a while and give reality a bit of time to resettle your brain.


Jophiel wrote:
This is making the assumption that the vast majority of people in Afghanistan consider themselves to be suffering as a result of the invasion.


Its a pretty sound assumption. I'm struggling to think of any people who find themselves hosting a foreign military power that considers themselves lucky to be subjected to occupation. The Afghanis have never been very amenable to it in the past. You think they might see things differently now because its the good ol' boy hearsts and minds Americans who are doing the occupying?

I wouldn't. Would you?

____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#101 Jul 14 2010 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
paulsol wrote:
Its a pretty sound assumption.

Not really, no.

Quote:
You think they might see things differently now because its the good ol' boy hearsts and minds Americans who are doing the occupying?

Nah. I think it's possible they see things differently because they prefer the current situation (and hope for further improvement) to living under the Taliban. I linked to a poll regarding it before and, even if you want to discount it as being worthless or whatever, it's at least an attempt at a legitimate look rather than "I just assume it's true."
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 613 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (613)