Heaven forbid they were actually allowed to both exist and live together.thanks_champ wrote:
Surely either the Israelies are meant to be there, or the palestinians are meant to be there - not both. One of them must have been there first ffs.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-11-02 13:31:10)
Read history dude.[UTQ]_Ausch88 wrote:
pro-israel propaganda
there was no problem with ISLAM before the creation of ISRAEL
stop the support of ISRAEl and let them fight their religious war alone
To be perfectly honest the administration before we went to war pushed behind a notion that they had some sort of links with Al-qaeda thus increasing approval for military actions. All of which now in hindsight was purely fictitious. You can't break a peace treaty with regards to the nuclear and chemical weapons if you never had them at the time they disputed the break. Where is this all mighty nuclear/chemical weapon stash that consequently broke the treaty?jonsimon wrote:
It's been the war on terror the whole time. Bush said so, and no one at the top disputed it.lowing wrote:
No he was removed for breaking the peace treaty. The terrorists that are there now is a seporate issue we are trying to dealing with. We werew not combating terrorism in Iraq at first.jonsimon wrote:
I know what you said, and I know where the logic leads. If you're saying saddam held terrorists at bay, which I can't argue yea or nay, then it follows we must be total fucktards for removing him in a self proclaimed war on terror.
Could Saddam have prevented this by complying with UN resolutions? (Serious question)Fen321 wrote:
To be perfectly honest the administration before we went to war pushed behind a notion that they had some sort of links with Al-qaeda thus increasing approval for military actions. All of which now in hindsight was purely fictitious. You can't break a peace treaty with regards to the nuclear and chemical weapons if you never had them at the time they disputed the break. Where is this all mighty nuclear/chemical weapon stash that consequently broke the treaty?jonsimon wrote:
It's been the war on terror the whole time. Bush said so, and no one at the top disputed it.lowing wrote:
No he was removed for breaking the peace treaty. The terrorists that are there now is a seporate issue we are trying to dealing with. We werew not combating terrorism in Iraq at first.
To be perfectly honest I'm not entirely sure.Kmarion wrote:
Could Saddam have prevented this by complying with UN resolutions? (Serious question)Fen321 wrote:
To be perfectly honest the administration before we went to war pushed behind a notion that they had some sort of links with Al-qaeda thus increasing approval for military actions. All of which now in hindsight was purely fictitious. You can't break a peace treaty with regards to the nuclear and chemical weapons if you never had them at the time they disputed the break. Where is this all mighty nuclear/chemical weapon stash that consequently broke the treaty?jonsimon wrote:
It's been the war on terror the whole time. Bush said so, and no one at the top disputed it.
He didn't break the resolutions by possessing WMD's, he broke the resolutions by NOT allowing the inspectors into his country to varify it.Fen321 wrote:
To be perfectly honest the administration before we went to war pushed behind a notion that they had some sort of links with Al-qaeda thus increasing approval for military actions. All of which now in hindsight was purely fictitious. You can't break a peace treaty with regards to the nuclear and chemical weapons if you never had them at the time they disputed the break. Where is this all mighty nuclear/chemical weapon stash that consequently broke the treaty?jonsimon wrote:
It's been the war on terror the whole time. Bush said so, and no one at the top disputed it.lowing wrote:
No he was removed for breaking the peace treaty. The terrorists that are there now is a seporate issue we are trying to dealing with. We werew not combating terrorism in Iraq at first.
Absolutely right!vedds wrote:
He played a game of brinkmanship and double bluff, and guess what? He lost.
The way he was denying access to the inspectors was intended to create a fear of Iraq.
It did.
The US removed the fear & potential threat.
End of story
And that made him a terrorist? And thus a potential target of the war on terror? I guess Israel is full of terrorists too, breaking UN resolutions and all.lowing wrote:
He didn't break the resolutions by possessing WMD's, he broke the resolutions by NOT allowing the inspectors into his country to varify it.Fen321 wrote:
To be perfectly honest the administration before we went to war pushed behind a notion that they had some sort of links with Al-qaeda thus increasing approval for military actions. All of which now in hindsight was purely fictitious. You can't break a peace treaty with regards to the nuclear and chemical weapons if you never had them at the time they disputed the break. Where is this all mighty nuclear/chemical weapon stash that consequently broke the treaty?jonsimon wrote:
It's been the war on terror the whole time. Bush said so, and no one at the top disputed it.
No it didn't make him a terrorist...........It made him in violation of the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to his country.jonsimon wrote:
And that made him a terrorist? And thus a potential target of the war on terror? I guess Israel is full of terrorists too, breaking UN resolutions and all.lowing wrote:
He didn't break the resolutions by possessing WMD's, he broke the resolutions by NOT allowing the inspectors into his country to varify it.Fen321 wrote:
To be perfectly honest the administration before we went to war pushed behind a notion that they had some sort of links with Al-qaeda thus increasing approval for military actions. All of which now in hindsight was purely fictitious. You can't break a peace treaty with regards to the nuclear and chemical weapons if you never had them at the time they disputed the break. Where is this all mighty nuclear/chemical weapon stash that consequently broke the treaty?
So you admit removing him accomplished nothing for the war on terror's agenda.lowing wrote:
No it didn't make him a terrorist...........It made him in violation of the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to his country.jonsimon wrote:
And that made him a terrorist? And thus a potential target of the war on terror? I guess Israel is full of terrorists too, breaking UN resolutions and all.lowing wrote:
He didn't break the resolutions by possessing WMD's, he broke the resolutions by NOT allowing the inspectors into his country to varify it.
Yup, fighting the war on terror was not the issue with Iraq, his violations of the peace treaty for 10 years was. The war on shifted to Iraq when the terrorist thought they could use Iraq as their new playground.jonsimon wrote:
So you admit removing him accomplished nothing for the war on terror's agenda.lowing wrote:
No it didn't make him a terrorist...........It made him in violation of the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to his country.jonsimon wrote:
And that made him a terrorist? And thus a potential target of the war on terror? I guess Israel is full of terrorists too, breaking UN resolutions and all.
Ah, would have been nice if that wasn't what the government said at the time.lowing wrote:
Yup, fighting the war on terror was not the issue with Iraq, his violations of the peace treaty for 10 years was. The war on shifted to Iraq when the terrorist thought they could use Iraq as their new playground.jonsimon wrote:
So you admit removing him accomplished nothing for the war on terror's agenda.lowing wrote:
No it didn't make him a terrorist...........It made him in violation of the UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to his country.
and it would also be nice if the liberals owned up to the fact that the percieved threat from Iraq was taken seriously by EVERYONE in govt. over the decade Saddam ws in violation and not just Bush trying to "steal oil".jonsimon wrote:
Ah, would have been nice if that wasn't what the government said at the time.lowing wrote:
Yup, fighting the war on terror was not the issue with Iraq, his violations of the peace treaty for 10 years was. The war on shifted to Iraq when the terrorist thought they could use Iraq as their new playground.jonsimon wrote:
So you admit removing him accomplished nothing for the war on terror's agenda.
Sorry, did you read the word 'republicans' where I typed 'government'?lowing wrote:
and it would also be nice if the liberals owned up to the fact that the percieved threat from Iraq was taken seriously by EVERYONE in govt. over the decade Saddam ws in violation and not just Bush trying to "steal oil".jonsimon wrote:
Ah, would have been nice if that wasn't what the government said at the time.lowing wrote:
Yup, fighting the war on terror was not the issue with Iraq, his violations of the peace treaty for 10 years was. The war on shifted to Iraq when the terrorist thought they could use Iraq as their new playground.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ … inton.html
No, I read "at the time" which "at the time" Bush ( a republican) was in office. Don't even try to dodge it.jonsimon wrote:
Sorry, did you read the word 'republicans' where I typed 'government'?lowing wrote:
and it would also be nice if the liberals owned up to the fact that the percieved threat from Iraq was taken seriously by EVERYONE in govt. over the decade Saddam ws in violation and not just Bush trying to "steal oil".jonsimon wrote:
Ah, would have been nice if that wasn't what the government said at the time.
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ … inton.html
Oh, so to you the presidency is equivelent to the entire government? I said the word government, implying the whole damned thing. You should get your eyes checked.lowing wrote:
No, I read "at the time" which "at the time" Bush ( a republican) was in office. Don't even try to dodge it.jonsimon wrote:
Sorry, did you read the word 'republicans' where I typed 'government'?lowing wrote:
and it would also be nice if the liberals owned up to the fact that the percieved threat from Iraq was taken seriously by EVERYONE in govt. over the decade Saddam ws in violation and not just Bush trying to "steal oil".
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ … inton.html
You and I both know what you meantjonsimon wrote:
Oh, so to you the presidency is equivelent to the entire government? I said the word government, implying the whole damned thing. You should get your eyes checked.lowing wrote:
No, I read "at the time" which "at the time" Bush ( a republican) was in office. Don't even try to dodge it.jonsimon wrote:
Sorry, did you read the word 'republicans' where I typed 'government'?
First, the rapture is mostly a creation of the last few centuries, and only recently has become a popular notion among Protestants, but that's more of an interfaith issue. I personally find the rapture to be a nutty spin on Christianity.Stingray24 wrote:
I'm curious, why is the rapture a issue? And bugging people about their personal life brings about more war? I’m confused, could you clarify?
Stingray, I try not to lump all Christians into the same boat. I realize that you mean well and that you appear to take a more compassionate route to "spreading the word." I'm glad you see this communication in a more rational way. You don't seem like one of those "fire and damnation" types. That's good, and I wish more religious people took your approach.Stingray24 wrote:
Personally, I tell people about my faith not to bug them, but because I care. You may have had the experience of someone beating you over the head with Christianity, if so, that's not how it’s supposed to be done. Jesus spread his message with love and by meeting people’s needs and Christians should be doing the same thing. Christians used to have the luxury of minding our own business. A large majority went to church and our society as a whole was much more values based. Now, however, there are numerous groups trying to keep our voice out of the public square exactly because it's rooted in moral values. Times have changed and segments of our society vocally oppose Christian values. As a result, we have to speak up more in defense of the values we believe in. That’s the beauty of our free country, free speech and votes for all.
There's no driving left to do, my friend. You have reached that destination.fadedsteve wrote:
All this talk with no action is driving me insane!
If you neighbor was Iran would you have bent over backwards and pulled up your skirt to show the world exactly what weapons you might have had?Kmarion wrote:
Could Saddam have prevented this by complying with UN resolutions? (Serious question)
No I guess I would go hide in a hole in the ground like Saddam did.Reciprocity wrote:
If you neighbor was Iran would you have bent over backwards and pulled up your skirt to show the world exactly what weapons you might have had?Kmarion wrote:
Could Saddam have prevented this by complying with UN resolutions? (Serious question)