wow! anyone ever heard any of this before? Options

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

Get a grip people. Can't you see that there are people that wish to destroy our country?!?! All those embassy attacks, the Cole, Twin Towers..wake up the fuck up! This has nothing to do with the political ramblings of Bush or Clinton or Bill Gates.

Countries like Afghanistan, Iran, S. Korea, the former Pakistan, the former Iraq, the former Lybia, all have willingly supported and harbored those that plan our destruction. Bill Clinton did nothing and that brought us another embassy attack, the Cole, the Twin Towers. Bush decided to DO something. Right or Wrong.
Yes, Iraq is a difficult mess because the Iraqi peolpe don't appear ready or willing to grab the opportunity for freedom that has been handed them and because as Osama has stated "we must win in Iraq". Osama is taking the fight to us in Iraq. Sure Bush/Congress/Senate/Pentagon has made mistakes in this effort but we have learned and changed.

The RISK to pulling out is that MILLIONS of Iraqi's will likely die as extremist of different breeds move in to take over. Do you know who the first people to die will be? Those Iraqi's that are currently helping and supporting us. Of course, you surely can see why so may Iraqi's want to help us when half our political leaders is telling them were pulling out any day now.
For those of you that advocate pulling out, YOU must share the responsibility of those millions of innocent lives that will be lost. So much for bleeding heart liberals wanting to help out oppressed people. Fakers all.

For those 2 young to remember 'NAM. When we pulled out 2 million Cambodians alone were slaughtered because we were not there to keep Pol Pot's and the other thugs in check.

During the Korean war, Trumans polls number were WORSE than Bush's. Most of you are probably suprised to here that because history considers Truman a success, because he stood up to aggression and fairly succeded. S.Korea is an economic shining star in the east.

This is the same thing we need in the middle east. An economic shining star to turn the tide of fanatisism that exists over there.

This post has been edited by Cpt. Snot Rocket: 08/09/07 9:00pm

[pezking]

Again, I'm not saying that the list was directly Clinton's doing. Just saying that it seemed like more of a coincidence and that it could happen. For all the stuff that the Clinton's HAVE been busted for, there are probably quite a few that they got away with. But I'm not dogging the Clinton's, I think it really boils down to all politicians are pretty evil. I'm sure most get in for the right reasons, but after pork barreling and scratching each other's backs for a long time, it's all about money, votes, money, and more money. Most don't give a shit about you and me.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Again, I'm not saying that the list was directly Clinton's doing. Just saying that it seemed like more of a coincidence and that it could happen. For all the stuff that the Clinton's HAVE been busted for, there are probably quite a few that they got away with. But I'm not dogging the Clinton's, I think it really boils down to all politicians are pretty evil. I'm sure most get in for the right reasons, but after pork barreling and scratching each other's backs for a long time, it's all about money, votes, money, and more money. Most don't give a shit about you and me.

I agree with most, but they AREN"T assassins, or affiliated with assassins. Read the scoop article. You can't keep pushing aside the logic of that article for a wildly speculative E-mail offering no proof whatsoever from 1998. That is called "cognitive dissonance". The ability to reject facts based on a preconceived notion. It's why 1/3rd of American's continue to believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 despite the face BUSH himself admitted there was no connection. Problem was, 1/3rd of Americans made up their mind 3 or 4 years ago Saddam did it, and no proof will stop them from believing it. I hope no one here falls for the trap of "cognitive dissonance" wherein they reject fact for a story that fall within a preconceived notion with no evidence to support it.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," he told a foreign policy forum on the eve of elections to establish Iraq’s first permanent, democratically elected government. "And I’m also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we’re doing just that."

"We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator," he said. "It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place."

"My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power," the President told the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.

"Our statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein were based on the aggregation of intelligence from a number of sources and represented the collective view of the intelligence community," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said in a White House briefing in November 2005. "Those judgments were shared by Republicans and Democrats alike."

Leading democrats sat on the National Security Council and saw the same "evidence". They NEVER said anything contrary to what Bush said.

Since Saddam was in clear viloation of 23 UN Security Violations Bush could have acted without congressional support. The Democrats demended a vote. Bush relented and a vote was taken. Nearly all the Democrats voted for the war.
So will someone PLEASE tell me how the democrats can be so innocent in this issue.
How about this. In 2005? the democrats were screaming for an immediate pullout, demanding the Republicans allow a vote to take place. So they did. You know what happened? At least half the Democrats voted in support of the war. All talk and no action.

I hope you see why I about puke when I hear most democrats talk about Iraq. The truth is is that the democratic party, at large, wants Americans to die & wants us to loose the war just to beat up Bush and the Republicans and regain power. I know that sounds harsh but thats reality. They have no plan they just criticize.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As president I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq," he told a foreign policy forum on the eve of elections to establish Iraq’s first permanent, democratically elected government. "And I’m also responsible for fixing what went wrong by reforming our intelligence capabilities. And we’re doing just that."

"We are in Iraq today because our goal has always been more than the removal of brutal dictator," he said. "It is to leave a free and democratic Iraq in his place."

"My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision. Saddam was a threat and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power," the President told the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars.

"Our statements about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein were based on the aggregation of intelligence from a number of sources and represented the collective view of the intelligence community," national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley said in a White House briefing in November 2005. "Those judgments were shared by Republicans and Democrats alike."

Leading democrats sat on the National Security Council and saw the same "evidence". They NEVER said anything contrary to what Bush said.

Since Saddam was in clear viloation of 23 UN Security Violations Bush could have acted without congressional support. The Democrats demended a vote. Bush relented and a vote was taken. Nearly all the Democrats voted for the war.
So will someone PLEASE tell me how the democrats can be so innocent in this issue.
How about this. In 2005? the democrats were screaming for an immediate pullout, demanding the Republicans allow a vote to take place. So they did. You know what happened? At least half the Democrats voted in support of the war. All talk and no action.

I hope you see why I about puke when I hear most democrats talk about Iraq. The truth is is that the democratic party, at large, wants Americans to die & wants us to loose the war just to beat up Bush and the Republicans and regain power. I know that sounds harsh but thats reality. They have no plan they just criticize.

Just for the record, I'm not American, and what I said had nothing to do with what you posted. I don't know if you were adressing me. But I'll point out all I said was IRAQ was NOT connected to 9/11. HOWEVER, 1/3rd of American continue to believe that, which is FACTUALY WRONG. And that is call "cognitive dissonace". The rest is opinion and can be dabated for a long time. But Iraq was NOT connected to 9.11, thus 1/3rd of American are completely divorced from reality when they answer in polls that they were connected, or in other polls, that WMD's were found in Iraq.

A lot of Americans also now believe that the Twin Tower destruction was a conspiracy. that to is a nut job thinking, since there's zero strong evidence of such a thing. Let's face it. A lot of poeple are dumb. The key is to not be as dumb as a lot of people. No matter whcih way you "swing", left or right, use common sense, don't reject facts, and don't ever assume your "side" is always right or the other side is always wrong.

[pezking]

I myself don't think that 9/11 was some huge consipiracy. Yes, in hindsight, it might have been prevented but then they would've just pushed for another big attack at some time. What it comes down to is that the US government and politicians are all shady. Our society has seen this over the years, more recently the last few decades. I'm pretty sure the country is split on whether Oswald was the lone gunman in the Kennedy assasination. As time goes on, more and more classified docs are unclassified and they show how messed up our agencies can be. The Kennedy case w/Marilyn Monroe was declassified earlier this year and that stuff is crazy. Bobby Kennedy pretty much had her killed if you read it. He ofcourse had help of her doctor and her in-home nurse, but it's just messed up. So seeing that these politicians and agencies can do all this crooked shit then reading the first post in this thread, yeah, I'm sure you can understand why some Americans could truly believe that it happened and that it could be linked to certain people. What people will do for the all might dollar, it's so messed up and humanity itself has failed.

[Keystone Two-Eight]

Hey James, a great source for checking the validity of such things is the Snopes Urban Legends site. They have placed a big, fat red "False" label on this one.

Yeah, I'm a big snopes fan, especially when my Mom continually sends me virus warnings, amber alerst, etc, etc.Anyone else have that problem with their folks? what makes it even worse is, my Mother will send it not only to me and my wife, but to my Father too (despite the fact he's sitting in the same room she is, she sends it to him anyway), AND THEN he, in turn, sends it back out to me, my wife, AND my Mom again!! I wonder sometimes if I need to take up vodka as a hobby again.



But snopes is good. Im usually suspicious of things like that anyway, especially when they come from the "misinformation highway". I suspect alot more of this crap will be surfacing in the next year, on both sides of the political fence. You know truthfully, I havent seen one person running yet that I thought was worth a damn.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

Just for the record, I'm not American, and what I said had nothing to do with what you posted. I don't know if you were adressing me. But I'll point out all I said was IRAQ was NOT connected to 9/11. HOWEVER, 1/3rd of American continue to believe that, which is FACTUALY WRONG. And that is call "cognitive dissonace". The rest is opinion and can be dabated for a long time. But Iraq was NOT connected to 9.11, thus 1/3rd of American are completely divorced from reality when they answer in polls that they were connected, or in other polls, that WMD's were found in Iraq.

A lot of Americans also now believe that the Twin Tower destruction was a conspiracy. that to is a nut job thinking, since there's zero strong evidence of such a thing. Let's face it. A lot of poeple are dumb. The key is to not be as dumb as a lot of people. No matter whcih way you "swing", left or right, use common sense, don't reject facts, and don't ever assume your "side" is always right or the other side is always wrong.

Not directing it at you MoD or anyone in particular. When I see people do drive by mud slinging I just like to point out some reality. Sometimes I get worked up! See what happens when I'm stuck in a motel for 3 nights and can't play COD! LoL!



Your point about the WMD's is good. However, we must remember that Saddan had WMD's and USED them in Iraq on Iraqi's. Death toll: About 200,000 to 300,000 people. The world inteligence communitee agreed that Saddam had WMD's when the coalition forces entered Iraq. Either Saddam did a great job moving or hiding them, or the intelligence was wrong. Most agree it was wrong.

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

Just for the record, I'm not American, and what I said had nothing to do with what you posted. I don't know if you were adressing me. But I'll point out all I said was IRAQ was NOT connected to 9/11. HOWEVER, 1/3rd of American continue to believe that, which is FACTUALY WRONG. And that is call "cognitive dissonace". The rest is opinion and can be dabated for a long time. But Iraq was NOT connected to 9.11, thus 1/3rd of American are completely divorced from reality when they answer in polls that they were connected, or in other polls, that WMD's were found in Iraq.

A lot of Americans also now believe that the Twin Tower destruction was a conspiracy. that to is a nut job thinking, since there's zero strong evidence of such a thing. Let's face it. A lot of poeple are dumb. The key is to not be as dumb as a lot of people. No matter whcih way you "swing", left or right, use common sense, don't reject facts, and don't ever assume your "side" is always right or the other side is always wrong.

Not directing it at you MoD or anyone in particular. When I see people do drive by mud slinging I just like to point out some reality. Sometimes I get worked up! See what happens when I'm stuck in a motel for 3 nights and can't play COD! LoL!



Your point about the WMD's is good. However, we must remember that Saddan had WMD's and USED them in Iraq on Iraqi's. Death toll: About 200,000 to 300,000 people. The world inteligence communitee agreed that Saddam had WMD's when the coalition forces entered Iraq. Either Saddam did a great job moving or hiding them, or the intelligence was wrong. Most agree it was wrong.

I disagree with the last point. most place didn't think that, that is the great myth that keeps being used as the last defence by right-wing talking heads on TV, but it is not accurate.

Weapons inspectors were combing the country and had gone to 100's of spots on the US made "lists" of where WMD's were and found nothing. They were over half done inspecting every half-suspected site imaginable and were begging to finish their job, and just before the attack gave reports that they were getting good co-operation, as well as concluding the nuclear program was already completely dismantled. (note, unlike how it is portrayed, you can't make weapons grade WMD's and their delivery systems on the back of trucks...you need sophisticated and large manufacturing plants ans storage facilites) This was all correct. Most of the rest of the world were gave that information the respect it deserved, the US and Britian chose to ignore it because it did not mesh with their pre-drawn conclusions that they figured Saddam had at LEAST a little something somwewhere, and they wanted to attack before the summer so they couldn't wait for a WMD or even evidence of a program to be found. Bush and Blair had concluded they were going to war with Iraq, and evidence, or lack of it, wasn't going to stop them.

To this day, Bush continues to repeat "saddam wouldn't let in the inspctors", forgetting he did let them in, inspections were happing for 6 months, the inspectors were begging for more time to finish their work. I actually think Bush has come to believe his own "mis-truths". Still doesn't make it right.

I had bets with people, including my boss, that nothing was going to be found. Largely because I was reading a couple of writers, not left-wing types either, who said nothing was going to be found except for some old mustard gas (btw, chemical and biological weapons degrade, so the point was they'd only find some old relics of useless material). They were actually experts who'd worked in the Middle East, and weren't politically affilated with the left or right. That's why they seemed trustworthy. It wasn't "political theatre" when they were talking. Neither were American either btw, so they could speak more freely. In the US, it became almost treasonous to question the US government line, but even evil men like Saddam and his cohorts can tell the truth sometimes, and even a great country like the US can have leaders who hide the truth or tell great lies.

Of course, all this argument is so old, I don't expect to change any opinions. I'm sure the commentators you listen to tell you different than what I'm saying, and you trust their views more. However, I'm guessing those are right-wing commentators who generally cheerlead the Rupublican party, and on this issue I think their credibility should be questioned severly, inncluding the claim the rest of the world thought he had them. They are fudging the facts.

I'll let others have the last word. Shutting down my old computer and about to plug in my new one now!!

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

I wonder how Saddam could violate 23 seperate UN rulings if he was complying? That's because he was playing a game. Don't you remeber him throwing them out repeatedly. The last time he barred them from doing inspection was final straw. You and I both know that after all that time he was never going to fully comply, only play us like fools. After Bush threatened to attack, only then did he say ok they can continue. But too late, enough was enough.

I watch the same liberal tv stations and read the same liberal papers you likely do. Like I said before hindsight is 20/20.
I don't recall anyone in the Democratic party questioning the intelligence findings. Democrats that sat in the same Security Council meetings with the President. They heard the same info the Republicans heard. Nobody said nothing until after they couldn't find the WMD's. Only then did it become "the President mislead us", "he's a liar", blah blah blah.

I agree minds are made up. Everyone agree's Saddam was threat to international peace anyway. How many invasions and wholesale slaughers does a dictator have to do get the world commmunity to rise up and stop him.

Remember bad boy Omar Khadaffi from Lybia? Terrorist cuddler and sworn enemy of the USA. After Bush made good on his promise to remove Saddam if he didn't allow the inspections to continue. Omar calls up the UN and says "come and get my WMD's and here's the terrorists you've been wanting. I don't want nothing to do with this shit anymore". Chalk 2 up for Bush, Clinton 0

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

I wonder how Saddam could violate 23 seperate UN rulings if he was complying? That's because he was playing a game. Don't you remeber him throwing them out repeatedly. The last time he barred them from doing inspection was final straw. You and I both know that after all that time he was never going to fully comply, only play us like fools. After Bush threatened to attack, only then did he say ok they can continue. But too late, enough was enough.

I watch the same liberal tv stations and read the same liberal papers you likely do. Like I said before hindsight is 20/20.
I don't recall anyone in the Democratic party questioning the intelligence findings. Democrats that sat in the same Security Council meetings with the President. They heard the same info the Republicans heard. Nobody said nothing until after they couldn't find the WMD's. Only then did it become "the President mislead us", "he's a liar", blah blah blah.

I agree minds are made up. Everyone agree's Saddam was threat to international peace anyway. How many invasions and wholesale slaughers does a dictator have to do get the world commmunity to rise up and stop him.

Remember bad boy Omar Khadaffi from Lybia? Terrorist cuddler and sworn enemy of the USA. After Bush made good on his promise to remove Saddam if he didn't allow the inspections to continue. Omar calls up the UN and says "come and get my WMD's and here's the terrorists you've been wanting. I don't want nothing to do with this shit anymore". Chalk 2 up for Bush, Clinton 0

You'll be paying for the Bush attack on Iraq for 15-20 years or more. If you think that makes the score "2-0 Bush, vs. Clinton", good for you.

BTW, Ghadafi was trying to make ammends for 15 years. It finally cumlminated with Bush, it would have culminated with virtually any American president with half a brain. Luckily, Bush just barely managed to quailify!

[PFC Mustangman]

Hey guys go check out Endtime.com about revealing the future through Bible prophecy some really good video lessons.Go to video and then click high quality video.Also check out infowars.com and prisonplanet.com.These web sites by Alex Jones tells whats happening in our Gov.to give us over to the New World Order.After JFK all our Presidents have been corupt some more than others So I hope you will check this out,the world as we know it now will change dramaticly in the next 18 to 36 Months.

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

You'll be paying for the Bush attack on Iraq for 15-20 years or more. If you think that makes the score "2-0 Bush, vs. Clinton", good for you.

BTW, Ghadafi was trying to make ammends for 15 years. It finally cumlminated with Bush, it would have culminated with virtually any American president with half a brain. Luckily, Bush just barely managed to quailify!

LMAO! Makes one wonder how he managed to defeat the super intelligent democrats........TWICE!

Of course, Osama is just waiting to surrender to a Democratic President! LoL

[M@ster of Dis@ster]

You'll be paying for the Bush attack on Iraq for 15-20 years or more. If you think that makes the score "2-0 Bush, vs. Clinton", good for you.

BTW, Ghadafi was trying to make ammends for 15 years. It finally cumlminated with Bush, it would have culminated with virtually any American president with half a brain. Luckily, Bush just barely managed to quailify!

LMAO! Makes one wonder how he managed to defeat the super intelligent democrats........TWICE!

Of course, Osama is just waiting to surrender to a Democratic President! LoL

Probably not. Didn't see him to surrender to a Republican one either though!

Anyhoo, how'd Bush win twice? Well, that's for Americans to decide. I guess the majority was happy. Will he be remembered fondly? Outside America, the answer is definately no, inside America, once again, that is for you to decide!

Anyway, good luck and God Bless whatever contry you're from!

[Cpt. Snot Rocket]

Interesting thought MoD. Let me ask you this, let's say you were going out of town and you needed to leave the keys to your house and your money with someone. You could leave them with the guy at the counter at the local store or your brother-in-law. Which one would you pick?

This is why I don't care much what other countries think of my president. Becase they NEVER EVER EVER EVER have the USA's best interest at heart. And, if an American President would ever decide policies based on what other countries want he/she should be tried for treason. I would only hope my good friends in Canada would do likewise.

If someone is only looking to be liked they should never be a leader. A leader is someone who has a vision and the courage to carry that vision into action regardless of whether they will be liked or not. A great leader is respected not neccasarily liked.

Respect is what a country is looking for. Cow towing to other peoples whims and wishes, never earns respect. For example, Al Queda had no respect for the Clinton administration. Now they have a ton of respect for the Bush administration. The Soviet Union had no respect for Jimmy Carter but a lot of respect for Ronald Reagan. Need I go on?

Class dismissed.