On the plus side of the war in iraq, from the information I am gettign from my military friends the troops have finaly figured out that the republicans do not have their best interest at hart and will be voteing agenst bush in the next election
Printable View
On the plus side of the war in iraq, from the information I am gettign from my military friends the troops have finaly figured out that the republicans do not have their best interest at hart and will be voteing agenst bush in the next election
bballad, I'm sure your friends will enjoy coming home to a country ravaged by terrorist attacks thanks to the democrats removing all of the national security measures in place and openning our borders with Mexico. :rolleyes: Your friends obviously don't care much about what's good for the entire nation, buddy.
CXGJarrod, your giving Bush a lot of credit, coming up with a scheme like that. I thought you and your buddy bballad weren't done calling him an "illiterate moron"? :rolleyes: BTW, I'm sure the oil appreciates it :rolleyes:
Seriously, where do you guys stand? First you said that there weren't any WMD's, then you said bio and chem weapons didn't count, now you're back to no WMD's? Well, chem and bio count as WMD's, and there has been evidence presented that says WMD's existed but were moved/hidden so there wasn't enough time to deploy. Don't change the subject, why do you insist that they don't exist?
Clinton was a shitty president, but I will always be thankful for at least two things he did. Reform welfare and for engaging in the few military conflicts that he actually did. Should have fought harder, that would have gained the support of the other isle even more. Sounds tough, then again we Americans don't take any ****, especially from dictators and terrorist. Be weary bad guys!
there whee no WMD's. bio and chems are not WMD's but nonconventional weapons, and there where no nonconventional's either....iraq was never a threat, but was a nice easy traget to up approval ratings, and had lots of oil.
How have the dems weakend the boarders, last I checked that was the presidents job...and he is failing at it. you see they do care about the good of the nation, they feel that we should be makeing more then a token effort to go after binladen insted of fighting a war to line halaburtans pockets with iraqi oil.Quote:
Originally posted here by TheRepublican
bballad, I'm sure your friends will enjoy coming home to a country ravaged by terrorist attacks thanks to the democrats removing all of the national security measures in place and openning our borders with Mexico. :rolleyes: Your friends obviously don't care much about what's good for the entire nation, buddy.
WTF? Did the left start spinning the definition of WMD? A scud loaded with a pawload of nerve agent no longer has the ability to produce mass casualties? Biological and Chemical have always been part of the definition. It was one of the indicators the UN inspectors where always looking for and defined in post world war 2. Ah, don't believe me. Believe our friend google.
http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...ss+Destruction
Kind of ironic isn't it RoadClosed. Back in April the left wants to claim that handguns are WMD's
http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/...562275,00.html
But not Chemical and Biological Weapons. NOOoooooo! ......... Geeeze!
BTW here is a link to the Department of Defense Plan for Integrating National Guard and Reserve Component Support for Response to Attacks Using Weapons of Mass Destruction.
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/wmdr...chapter_1.html You'll have to scroll down some or you can just read the excerpt below.
Definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction
For the purpose of this strategic plan, WMD include any weapon or device that are intended, or have the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors, a disease organism, or radiation or radioactivity.
1st no one ever said I was on the leftQuote:
Originally posted here by RoadClosed
WTF? Did the left start spinning the definition of WMD? A scud loaded with a pawload of nerve agent no longer has the ability to produce mass casualties? Biological and Chemical have always been part of the definition. It was one of the indicators the UN inspectors where always looking for and defined in post world war 2. Ah, don't believe me. Believe our friend google.
http://www.google.com/search?q=defin...ss+Destruction
second a scud with a load of nonconventionals will not cause mass casualties. Iraqi has shown this with their attacks on the kurds, it was found that they would have killed many more people and would have done more damage if they had droped conventional bombs insted of chemical attacks, cemicals and biologicals have a terror effect, this is tru, but they do not cause deth or distruction on any signifigant scale.
That really depends on how persistent the agent is, weather conditions, and the amount of toxins released.Quote:
Originally posted here by bballad
1st no one ever said I was on the left
second a scud with a load of nonconventionals will not cause mass casualties. Iraqi has shown this with their attacks on the kurds, it was found that they would have killed many more people and would have done more damage if they had droped conventional bombs insted of chemical attacks, cemicals and biologicals have a terror effect, this is tru, but they do not cause deth or distruction on any signifigant scale.
bballad said:
Look at California! The Democrats there are allowing illegal aliens to enter the country, to get drivers licenses, and to vote! They are here illegally, taking jobs, causing crime, and the Democrats have decided that just because they are within US borders they should have equal rights as full, hardworking, taxpaying citizens! Clinton was no exception. He not only vetoed laws to help control illegal aliens, laws that could have put 9/11 hijacker mohammad atta out of commision, put passed more of these ridiculous laws to give illegal immigrants rights! Some on the far left have even asked for open borders with Mexico! How is that not weakening our borders!?! Also, did you look at any of the links I gave? Bio and chem weapons are WMD's, no question. Most will cause mass casualties if they are civilians with no protective equipment like the residents of the Middle East and of the USA! So give it up!Quote:
How have the dems weakend the boarders
OK my bad - but I don't agree that biological weapons are not WMD. If you remember the gulf war: Israel told Sadam if one, just one scud had any biological contagion they would nuke Baghdad. Given Israel’s resilience in these matters, everyone believed that a nuclear strike was imminent and especially Sadam. So he continually lobbed scuds at Israel killing many civilians, he wasn’t even really aiming – just reckless attacking at semi random targets. A Scud can almost destroy an entire building like an apartment block typical of the Middle East. But, given a calm night in the desert and no wind; two or three scuds dropped in high population areas would cause a nice little bit of mass destruction if it was a highly toxic nerve agent. You have the explosion of the scud, plus fallout of poisonous gas. It makes your nervous system stop sending and receiving electrical signals and you go into convulsions before dying violently. Or just as nasty, a blood agent that interferes with hemoglobin and makes it so your red blood cells can no longer exchange oxygen. So you can breathe normally and gasp for air all you want and you slowly suffocate. Nasty beasts, they were outlawed in rules of warfare and engagement for a reason. Oh and using them in the mountains? Very stupid.Quote:
1st no one ever said I was on the left
Elections are coming up so you can vote how you please. But right now, no front running Democratic candidate has said they plan to pull out of Iraq. Sure they might replace the current political buzz word company slash contractor and turn everything over to the U.N. Bush has been soliciting more UN support already but maybe a democrat would have more success since Bush basically put them in their place for historical in-action in any heated situation. May guess is their world headquarters would have been next. Terrorist groups in Iraq have no problems bombing local UN headquarters and killing the very people there to help. And who, I mean who attacks and kills Red Cross operations helping their own people. Crazy, but the U.N is in charge of Bosnia, you can make your own assumption for success there. But no one is willing to go on record and say they will pull out. If a real candidate, in the running has, I haven’t heard it.
What about Persian Gulf sickness, I bet a lot of people who don't believe in WMD were on that bandwagon when it was happening. If you remember U.S. soldiers were and are complaining that they were subjected to some kind of chemical? Who knows, just tossing that in for fun!
Oh - The plight of the Kurds is very close to my heart. Sadam systematically was eradicating them and your statement that he would have been more successful at using conventional payloads vs. biological just proves that according to US, UN, and Geneva charters that he had and used WMD without remorse. In fact long after the media left the gulf, bands of Iraqi's still hunted and killed Kurds in the northern mountains of Iraq. And the Kurds didn’t do **** but try and run.