Senator Kerry

Thats simple.

A Lunatic and Moron that doesnt give a fuck for anyone or anything except profit, in charge of the largest and deadliest Nuclear Arsenal in the world.

In addition to the best armed conventional forces in the world.

Who blatently lies to his own people and the rest of the world, in order to achieve his own ends...


The question should be: "What are you NOT afraid of?"....

Edit:

Libya..

They have been making moves to come back on the world stage for years, it was Lockerby and a certain shooting in London that was the biggest obsticles (for the UK) those matters are just about cleared up, they have re-joined the International Community. Timing is coincidence there... they were trying before 9/11...

Iran was making moves to Democracy, before a certain Dickhead named them as part of "The Axis of Evil"...and made them throw any plans they had out the window..

Re the chemical attack in the ME, it seemed to me that the bulk of the items as shown on TV were "off the shelf" 5 litre containers of standard chemicals.

The nasty thing about WMD is that all you need is a bucket, a couple of hoses and few hardware stores to buy the right mix of chemicals from. This is not rocket science. It was first suggested by a RN captain (Scottish I am afraid) during the Napoleonic wars. The British did not do it because it was considered a tad unsporting (and the French might do it back to us).

The main weapons Saddam had in the 80s were basically of 1914 and 1930s vintage. These can be produced quickly and easily by anyone with basic chemistry training.

Other than nuclear, WMD is a pretty spurious term. There are chemicals which are outlawed by international treaty (although many countries continue to play with them). Iraq had mustard gas and some nerve agents and used them in the Iran Iraq war to stop Iran's superior numbers (being a much larger country) and against a Kurdish village on the Iran border that Saddam was convinced had changed sides.

The evidence would appear to support the view that Iraq has done little in this field since the 1980s and most of their stock has long since life expired.

Chemical attacks are of interest to AQ and they clearly plan to use them. What Iraq had or did not have is not particularly relevant. Regime change appears to have been the primary concern, but as that is not actually legal under international law, a ruse was needed.

Afghanistan was different because 1) only about three countries recognised the regime and 2) they were harbouring individuals who had attacked another country first. Consequently UN approval was given to move against the Taliban.

My i say sorry now for the use of the "F" word in my previous post..

I wont edit it, as i do feel that strongly about the subject...

Rat-

Time does not permit a comprehensive response, but as re: the nukes, treat yourself to a refresher of Cold War politics, and mull that for a while.

Would you indulge me please by stating precisely what it was that Bush "blatantly" lied about, to his own people or otherwise?

Just very simply a simple recounting of the lie proper, without any adornment?

I think I've heard them all. but I'd like to hear your version; forget the links, and all the cumbersome reading-at this point, a quick version should suffice.

I must go to work, now, but I'd appreciate the opportunity to discuss this stuff, one point at a time-make it easier for others to participate also, by limiting the scope of the topic.

If you feel starting a separate thread appropriate, let me know; that might be a way to go. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc+28 April 2004 - 12:07--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 28 April 2004 - 12:07)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank@28 April 2004 - 08:29
So the appearance of chemical weapons in the same region as Iraq still doesn&#39;t convince you that Saddam had anything over there? Where do you think all the weapons went when he knew that we were coming?

---

this my friend is what&#39;s known as circumstantial evidence and is worth absolutely....nothing.

[/b][/quote]
Its been said for a long time that during the build up for the war Saddam trucked his weapons out of the country to neighboring countries; Syria and Iran. Now would you like to take a guess which country the terrorist who were just caught came from?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+28 April 2004 - 17:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 28 April 2004 - 17:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@28 April 2004 - 12:07
<!--QuoteBegin-BigBank_Hank

---

Quote:

---

@28 April 2004 - 08:29
So the appearance of chemical weapons in the same region as Iraq still doesn&#39;t convince you that Saddam had anything over there? Where do you think all the weapons went when he knew that we were coming?

---

this my friend is what&#39;s known as circumstantial evidence and is worth absolutely....nothing.

---

Its been said for a long time that during the build up for the war Saddam trucked his weapons out of the country to neighboring countries; Syria and Iran. Now would you like to take a guess which country the terrorist who were just caught came from? [/b][/quote]
Good lord man, that is not "slap in the face" evidence as you make it seem.

Just like the intel on Iraq&#39;s WMD wasn&#39;t. <_<

On another note, I felt pissed initially when the Republican congress voted to name an airport after Ronald Reagan and a building on Pennsylvania Ave after him.

I thought, "What did he do so great." "Is it sympathy for Altzheimers?"

Then there was one thing that I tried to rationalize.

He served as President during the Cold War.

Nuclear Armageddon was some shit that everyone was scared of.

Bush on the other hand is stirring some different shit altogether.

Terrorism is number one on the agenda so why is Bush up Iraq&#39;s ass.

It seems severely off focus.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@28 April 2004 - 13:14
Its been said for a long time that during the build up for the war Saddam trucked his weapons out of the country to neighboring countries; Syria and Iran. Now would you like to take a guess which country the terrorist who were just caught came from?

---

in your words...."it has been said"

well that&#39;s hard evedence indeed, perhaps we should use that in our homeland courts.
" members of the jury, it&#39;s obvious that the accused is bang to rights guilty...just look at the evedence....we don&#39;t have the weapon, but someone said the think he had a gun and the victim was obviously shot"

just a question to play devils advocate, not an opinion.... why are the fighting forces (non coalition) called terrorists, yet (as an example) the french resistance were called freedom fighters. i am not talking about acts outside iraq. i am talking about attacks against our troops within iraq (i do know that civilians have been killed in these attacks but then they were in the coalition invasion).
I suppose it all depends on which side of the fence one sits...attack me you are a terrorist..attack my foes, you are a freedom fighter. I&#39;m sure if a group in cuba tried to blow up castro they would be called freedom fighters. I wouldn&#39;t be asking this if they were called resistance forces instead of terrorist groups.

what was the thread topic about again??????? :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Busyman@28 April 2004 - 14:32
Good lord man

---

now there are words i never expected to read on a busyman post :lol: :lol:

Ok we&#39;ll leave the whole WMD&#39;s and war talk for another thread because were way far from the topic&#39;s description. I would love to continue the discussion in another thread.

@vidcc: Freedom fighters fight for just that freedom. Freedom fighters don&#39;t use women and children to hide behind when the shoot at Marines. They also don&#39;t hide huge piles of weapons (not WMD&#39;s :P )in mosques,schools, and hospitals. These people are called terrorist because they are trying to cause trouble and disrupt what we&#39;re trying to do.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc+28 April 2004 - 18:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 28 April 2004 - 18:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@28 April 2004 - 14:32
Good lord man

---

now there are words i never expected to read on a busyman post :lol: :lol: [/b][/quote]
You mean hobbes, vid.

I am Christian. ;)