All 3 of the threads about Bush and USA

Discussion in 'General Chat' started by TURD BURGLAR, Sep 1, 2004.

  1. are made by people who aren't american.

    i haven't bothered to look in any of them. but it's kinda strange how some people are so concerned by the events of a country that isn't theirs.
  2. why are we so concerned about Iraq then? that wasn't (& shouldn't have been) our concern to begin with but arrogant bush has to stick his ass wherever he sees fit.
  3. Why were we so concerned about Germany then? That wasn't our concern, that arrogant Churchill and Roosevelt had to stick their asses wherever thaey saw fit, rather than listening to good ole Chamberlain.
  4. Are you on crack? You think that Bush was the cause of the problems?

    Typical little kid who doesn't think the world existed before 4 years ago.

    Please, only come back when you have something intellignet to add.
  5. Maybe you should read my posts? I said in at least 2 why I make those posts.
  6. Again, I don't care about what Bush did to the US people. That's their problem.
    I care because he turned into a threat to the world peace.
  7. Kid? wouldn't call someone in their mid 20's a kid would you.
  8. I think he just did.
  9. So? Theres a thread about Russia made by an American
  10. Because there is actually a serious threat there. The people here are just poking fun because thats the kind of people they are. There is a difference between the Americans here and Saddam Hussein and Bin Laden.
  11. Couldn't agree more with you.America fights against terrorism and for the respect of the human rights.
  12. Hussein & Bin Laden are not connected for the millionth damn time. Where do Republicans get off with such bs? & where's the serious threat in Iraq? I don't see it. But I bet George W. Hitler saw it.
  13. For the first time, I disagree with your statement TURD.
  14. Teehee. You're so witty. How is Bush like Hitler? Is it because he's taking away our rights?

    I was actually referring more to human rights abuses than threat.
  15. Do I have to repeat it? Ok, but only because you're retarded and I'm suppoised to be nice to you... Hopefully you can read english:

    (repeat of post in the other thread)

    Consider the facts presented in Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter (pp. 177-78) sums up some of the evidence:

    Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...

    Hayes is a writer for The Weekly Standard and much of his writing on the Saddam/Osama connection is available there for free; simply use the search engine and look for articles by Hayes.

    According to Laurie Mylroie, a former Harvard professor who served as Bill Clinton's Iraq advisor during the 1992 campaign (during which Vice-Presidential candidate Gore repeatedly castigated incumbent President George H.W. Bush for inaction against Saddam), the ringleader of the World Trade Center bombings, Ramzi Yousef, was working for the Iraqi intelligence service. Laurie Mylroie, The War Against America: Saddam Hussein and the World Trade Center Attacks: A Study of Revenge (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2d rev. ed. 2001).

    Although Saddam never threatened the territorial integrity of America, he repeatedly threatened Americans. For example, on November 15, 1997, the main propaganda organ for the Saddam regime, the newspaper Babel (which was run by Saddam Hussein's son Uday) ordered: "American and British interests, embassies, and naval ships in the Arab region should be the targets of military operations and commando attacks by Arab political forces." (Stephen Hayes, The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004), p. 94.) On November 25, 2000, Saddam declared in a televised speech, "The Arab people have not so far fulfilled their duties. They are called upon to target U.S. and Zionist interests everywhere and target those who protect these interests."

    On the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a weekly newspaper owned by Uday Hussein said that Arabs should "use all means-and they are numerous-against the aggressors...and considering everything American as a military target, including embassies, installations, and American companies, and to create suicide/martyr [fidaiyoon] squads to attack American military and naval bases inside and outside the region, and mine the waterways to prevent the movement of war ships..."

    Moreover, the Saddam regime did not need to make verbal threats in order to "threaten" the United States. The regime threatened the United States by giving refuge to terrorists who had murdered Americans, and by funding terrorists who were killing Americans in Israel. Saddam gave refuge to terrorists who had attacked the United States by bombing the World Trade Center. In addition:

    In 1991, a large number of Western hostages were taken by the hideous Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and held in terrible conditions for a long time. After that same invasion was repelled—Saddam having killed quite a few Americans and Egyptians and Syrians and Brits in the meantime and having threatened to kill many more…

    .Iraqi forces fired, every day, for 10 years, on the aircraft that patrolled the no-fly zones and staved off further genocide in the north and south of the country. In 1993, a certain Mr. Yasin helped mix the chemicals for the bomb at the World Trade Center and then skipped to Iraq, where he remained a guest of the state until the overthrow of Saddam….On Dec. 1, 2003, the New York Times reported—and the David Kay report had established—that Saddam had been secretly negotiating with the "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il in a series of secret meetings in Syria, as late as the spring of 2003, to buy a North Korean missile system, and missile-production system, right off the shelf. (This attempt was not uncovered until after the fall of Baghdad, the coalition’s presence having meanwhile put an end to the negotiations.)

    Hitchens, Slate. The cited article is David E. Sanger & Thom Shanker, "A Region Inflamed: Weapons. For the Iraqis, a Missile Deal That Went Sour; Files Tell of Talks With North Korea, New York Times, Dec. 1, 2003.

    As French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin stated on November 12, 2002, "The security of the United States is under threat from people like Saddam Hussein who are capable of using chemical and biological weapons." (Hayes, p. 21.) De Villepin's point is indisputable: Saddam was the kind of person who was capable of using chemical weapons, since he had actually used them against Iraqis who resisted his tyrannical regime. As de Villepin spoke, Saddam was sheltering terrorists who had murdered Americans, and was subsidizing the murder of Americans (and many other nationalities) in Israel.

    Oh, BTW, we went after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan first, before turning to Iraq. We destroyed the primary Al Qaeda network, liberated a nation, and reduced the ability of the terrorists to do major damage, before turning to iraq to both reduce international terrorisme more AND deal with a nation that had already invaded a neigboring countyr and violated 14 UN resolutions. AND had repeatedly shot at (and therfore attempted to kill) American and british pilots enforcing the "no fly zone" over portions of Iraq, which were set in place after Saddam invaded Kuwait.
  16. Couldn't agree more with chris v's post
  17. From my perspective, at 41 and a member of this community far longer than you, you certainly are. Your arguments are junior high level, as is your communication ability and your ability to process basic information. Always has been, on this and other subjects.
  18. From my perspective, as someone that tries not to resort to personal attacks, I'd say your a hypocrit. But then if your as mature as you seem to think you are, you would know that already wouldn't you. (Theres a reason thats a . not a ? )
  19. Someone who tries not to resort to personal attacks? What a laugh. You only don't attack someone in a position to actually RESPOND to you. But you're more than willing to personally attack the leadership of this country.

    I'm sure you said the same thing to your teachers when they told you you were wrong.

    If you don't want to be labelled as an idiot, don't make idiotic responses. I personally don't care if I'm labelled an ass or a curmudgeon (look it up) by people who deserve to be insulted for their actions and statements.

    I don't see you saying Michael Moore is an immature person for making attacks on GWB, which means you DO suppoort adults making personal attacks on other adults if they don't believe the same things. That makes YOU the hypocrite, not me. YU can attack all teh people you don't like with impunity, but if anyone does it to you, you whine like a little #%!@ about how they're being mean to you. Little clue, look under my user name...

    Your big problem is you can't refute what I say, only whine about how I say it. Well, I GIVE the information in huge chunks, in clear english, with litel editorializing. When you don't listen to it, or you ignore it to spout BS, I'll tell you you're a moron. If you can't handle that, I suggest you go back to playing with the little girls, and not try to discuss politics with the big boys.
  20. you've been on this planet 15 years longer than I have. That's not very long. If you don't like what I have to say then stfu. It's that simple.
  21. Personally attack the leadership of your country? Where? Please show me this.

    Heres what I'm seeing from your posts- If I disagree with what you say and make arguements refuting your points, I'm an idiot (to you), but if I agree with your points then I'm smart? That seems to be the case at least.
  22. You're not willing to STFU about your opinions on Bush, so I don't have to STFU about my opinions of YOU. It's that simple.

    BTW, you have anything intelligent to say about the information I posted? Or would facts get in the way of your idiotic ramblings about GWB?
  23. If you disagree with him and are wrong, you are an idiot. Therefore, if you agreed with him, you would be right, and therefore smart.

    Logic is a #%!@.
  24. You haven't *refuted* any points, only whined that you were being called names. Again, look under my user name to see whether I care.

    You say you don't know most of this stuff, yet you contradict anyone who posts anything substantial that doesn't fit with your conspiracy theories. You don't actually refute them, merely argue that they don't know what they think they know. Why? Because YOU don't know it, how could anbyone else know anything.

    That's called "projection." i.e. projecting your inability to know on everyone else.

Share This Page