Saddam Hussein caught?

by **LeVar Burton** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:21 pm

I'm asking right now for people to stop using those smilies with the rolling eyes. I know its off topic, but I hate those fuckin' things.

by **Xenius** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:31 pm

Haha, I hear you LeVar. Dumbest fucking things ever. Even when compared to Bush.

by **=V!per=** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:43 pm

Originally posted by Bagginses
:beer: Well, here's to hoping it makes a visible difference.

-Bagginses

I drink to that:beer:

by **Mighty Mazz** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:43 pm

What really should be done is to take out that whole godforbidden area we call the middleast with a bunch of bombs. Then we (USA) should just ransack Canada looting and pillaging all the Canucks. :rotflmao:

The one thing I like about Bush is he doesn't give a damn what most of the world has to say. Sure Iraq wasn't that great of a threat but it is better to deal with a little problem before it gets out of hand I for one don't want a country like former Iraq with any type of military power.

But don't listen to me. If i was ruler of America I'd probably try to conquer the entire World. United Continents of America!

by **=V!per=** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:45 pm

Originally posted by MMmmGood
I'm really surprised he didnt have a cyanide pill

I was and still am surprised about that myself. I mean he knows the fate that awaits him....maybe he was really that disoriented that he didn't know how to kill himself?:P

by **=V!per=** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:48 pm

Originally posted by Rule of Wrist

Congratulations to the guys and gals of the US military and US intelligence agencies who made this happen

I drink to that....DOUBLE!!!!! :beer:

by **=V!per=** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:55 pm

Originally posted by LeVar Burton
I'm asking right now for people to stop using those smilies with the rolling eyes. I know its off topic, but I hate those fuckin' things.

I drink to that.... What's up w/ those damn rolling eyes?:beer: :roll:

<----That's freakin' annoying; If you want to prove your pt. be agressive (:mad: )

. No malice intended.

by **JimmyTango** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:56 pm

Originally posted by LeVar Burton
I'm asking right now for people to stop using those smilies with the rolling eyes. I know its off topic, but I hate those fuckin' things.

Would you like to tell posters what they should post, also? Maybe how they should vote this coming election?

And your post deserves this(as this is what that smiley is for). :roll:

All the smileys are annoying. But this one actually has a specific point: to make sure whoever reads your post knows your internet, as without it, someone can take the post in a different manner.

by **LeVar Burton** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:02 pm

Would you like to tell posters what they should post, also? Maybe how they should vote this coming election?

Easy Jimmy, Easy. I wasn't telling, I was asking. I was just stating how much I dislike them. To me, its like rolling your eyes at someone when you're trying to have a decent argument. Just seems disrespectful to me. It wasn't directed at you specifically.

by **Doug the Unforgiven** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:32 pm

Amen, Kristov. And nice to see you again.

And Jimmy, all suicide/car bombers are wrong. Using my name wasn't necessary to make your point, unless you're continuing with the absurd notion that I'm a water carrier for Bush, and therefore would agree with the US policy of bending over for the Palestinians. I want ALL terrorism dealt with, and I think Israel should just be turned loose to fix their own problems. We could learn alot from a people who have suffered far more from terrorism than we have. I'm tired of the mixed message we send the world. The Islamists hate us whatever we do, so why try to appease them?

As for most of everything else...I could direct all of you to conspiracyplanet or democratunderground for the same information.

And if you have to know why I wanted Clinton gone, it was for committing perjury, among other things. A woman wanted her fair day in court, and he tried to deny her that by lying under oath...WHILE HE WAS PRESIDENT. Now there could be a bunch of nitpicking about whether a President should be allowed to be subpoenaed for such things during his term, but it stands that he did commit perjury.

But I don't really care about that much anymore. What really pissed me off about Clinton was how he lied to us about all the WMD's in Iraq. He launched hundreds of cruise missiles under false pretenses. We should remember that before invoking Clinton's name while calling Bush a liar. Were they both liars? Or just Bush? What about the 1993 'retaliation' against the so-called Iraqi plot to assassinate the elder Bush? That was unilateral, and also a big lie. Should we be trying Clinton now for war crimes (war under false pretenses) he committed while in office?

I know, I know...You Bush-haters will bring up Clinton, but none of you will admit to liking him or defending him. Whatever. :roll:

(rolling eyes for Levar

)

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:43 pm

Hot Damn!

I knew those European (We miss when we in charge of the world and fucked up royally) Appeaser Liberals would pop into a thread like this and start with the "We needed to work together" and not seperately" "Its A good thing if we all agree and if we in Europe don't then it must be a BAD THING"

The French, German, and Russian's weren't against going into Iraq on any noble grounds or ideas about international justice. They were against it because they were making a shitload of money off of Iraq and didn't want anyone knocking over the apple cart and exposing the worms.

Kind of ironic isn't it? the money that should have been going for medicine and food for Iraqi's was instead paying European contractors for palaces, shelters, WMD technology, and luxuries for the Hussein family. Not to mention paying off European politicians.

Isn't that kind of funny now? All the people screaming we were just going there for the oil didn't want us there because they were making money from the oil. Hypocritical assholes.

Now Good American men and women have shed their blood and the end result will be a free Iraq run by Iraqi's. I am trying to think of when anything like that happened in Europe. Oh yes. Two come to mind. WWI and WWII.

Hmmm seeing how you guys turned out maybe we should have let the Germans win WWI. If they turn out anything like you worthless Europeans maybe we should have stayed out of Iraq.

(P.S. I don't hate all Europeans as a class or anything. Just the ones who aren't in Germany or Britain.)

by **JimmyTango** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 1:49 pm

Um, nice. The weapons inspectors have always said that there was no evidence of current WMD programs or physical WMD. They have said that any WMD left over from being dismantled were blown away from those same missles Clinton ordered to be fired.

Doug, I know you are Republican or nothing(just as bad as Democrat or nothing), and you will always be blinded by that.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 2:44 pm

Actually Jimmy you are wrong.

Many of the weapons inspectors say there was/is plenty of evidence for WMD's. In fact many quit because of lack of cooperation in finding them. In fact we are finding tons of evidence since the invasion of the production and existence of WMD's.

Just last week in Britain a senior Iraqi army official who was stationed in southern Iraq admitted his units had recieved CBR type weapons and it would have been less than the hypothetical "45" minutes to use them. He also stated he knew they were going to lose and thats why he and many other commanders did not use them. They did not want to face the consequences.

That being said I don't really care wether there was any then or now. Well.. I do care because I was there in the first war in the Navy and didn't want that shit used on me. I sit right next to another Gulf War I Vet here at work and he has recieved notification (he's ex-army) that his unit was subject to a chemical weapons attack while there in 91.

I have stated before in previous threads that the existence of WMD's was immaterial to wether or not Iraq needed to be invaded, which it did need.

Now in a perfect world the younger generation in Iran will remove the cleric auristocracy from there and then maybe Islam can police its own radical elements. Doubtful but maybe.

by **Folic_Acid** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 3:38 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango
This is the biggest crock of shit I have ever read.

Jimmy - I'm curious. What exactly is your point with this whole post? I'd go through your post and refute it line by line, but I think my post would be a bit long-winded. Suffice it to say - it'd be a pretty easy thing for me to refute, though.

Well, I can't resist just this one:

Originally posted by JimmyTango
What, because the US has become a terrorist target over the last couple of decades, NO ONE ELSE IS?

Uh.... What? Are you forgetting Israel, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq, Japan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, and the Philippines, just to name a few? Or do the events that have taken place in those countries somehow fall into a different category other than "terrorism?"

by **Doug the Unforgiven** » Mon Dec 15, 2003 4:14 pm

Originally posted by JimmyTango
Doug, I know you are Republican or nothing(just as bad as Democrat or nothing), and you will always be blinded by that.

What? Have we ever hung out? Have you been to my house? Have we ever worked together? Have you been to any of my Sunday night BBQs? Do we play BF1942 together? Are you just blatantly spying on me? LOL, you know nothing about me. I could just as easily call you a Democrat or nothing (based on your 'views'). It doesn't make it true.

I guess I shouldn't have even bothered saying anything in the first place. I knew what I might be stepping into...

Saddam Hussein caught?

Who is online