10-18-2004, 08:52 PM
|
#41
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kalispell, Montana
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 19 2004, 02:50 AM
Saddam Hussein was told by ambassador April Glaspie that the U.S. was not interested in his dispute with Kuwait and would not stand in his way. Shortly after the green light was given, he invaded. If not for the information Glaspie gave him, it is unlikely that he would have invaded Kuwait.
|
And what was the nature of that 'dispute'?
What a joke.
__________________
I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 08:53 PM
|
#42
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 19 2004, 02:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 19 2004, 02:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-kipperfan@Oct 19 2004, 02:45 AM
Yes, and you and your fellow Americans whole heartedly supported his removal from power, with extreme force.
Bad example.
|
Continually? Please back that up. [/b][/quote]
Continually may be a "micheal moore stretch", but fact remains that the American foriegn policy under Bush is an intrusive one, that holds the prioritys of america in higher standing than the soveriegnty of foriegn citizens.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 08:55 PM
|
#43
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kalispell, Montana
|
Quote:
Originally posted by kipperfan@Oct 19 2004, 02:53 AM
Continually may be a "micheal moore stretch", but fact remains that the American foriegn policy under Bush is an intrusive one, that holds the prioritys of america in higher standing than the soveriegnty of foriegn citizens.
|
Thanks for admitting you're wrong, I appreciate that.
The rest of your point is nothing more than a 'yeah but' retort to my point.
__________________
I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:01 PM
|
#44
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 19 2004, 02:55 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 19 2004, 02:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-kipperfan@Oct 19 2004, 02:53 AM
Continually may be a "micheal moore stretch", but fact remains that the American foriegn policy under Bush is an intrusive one, that holds the prioritys of america in higher standing than the soveriegnty of foriegn citizens.
|
Thanks for admitting you're wrong, I appreciate that.
The rest of your point is nothing more than a 'yeah but' retort to my point.[/b][/quote]
2 countries in as many years, thats one country ever 2 years on average during bush's term.
Continually may have been a strong word, but im not wrong, no other country, EXPECT for Saddams Irag, which you kindly pointed out has employed a obtrusive foriegn sush as the american model of recent years, as operated in the napoleanic(sp?) way that is bushs america. And Saddam was removed for being deemed dangerous, by YOUR country, yet you praise the policys of the US, dont believe the american intentions are any more noble than that of hussien.
__________________
"Man, so long as he remains free, has no more constant and agonizing anxiety than to find, as quickly as possible, someone to worship."
Fyodor Dostoevsky - The Brothers Karamazov
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:03 PM
|
#45
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:  
|
Quote:
Originally posted by kipperfan+Oct 18 2004, 07:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kipperfan @ Oct 18 2004, 07:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 02:50 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-kipperfan
|
Quote:
@Oct 19 2004, 02:45 AM
Yes, and you and your fellow Americans whole heartedly supported his removal from power, with extreme force.
Bad example.
|
Continually? Please back that up.
|
Continually may be a "micheal moore stretch", but fact remains that the American foriegn policy under Bush is an intrusive one, that holds the prioritys of america in higher standing than the soveriegnty of foriegn citizens. [/b][/quote]
Micheal Moore shouldn't be referenced too here, not in the arguement of America's foreign policy.
And now you think Bush should have sat back and done nothing about the attacks on 9/11?
How is it an intrusive one if Bush invaded Iraq to insure sovereignty? I think you fail to realize that the citizens of Iraq weren't sovereign under Saddam, he controlled their every move.
And when a revolution started he got rid of it quick.
You're putting yourself in a corner by calling the Americans foreign policy intrusive.
He wouldn't surrender when Bush asked him too, so there was no choice but extreme force. He didn't give up power so the US took it from him. Simple Really.
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:06 PM
|
#46
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:  
|
Quote:
Originally posted by kipperfan+Oct 18 2004, 08:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kipperfan @ Oct 18 2004, 08:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 02:55 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-kipperfan
|
Quote:
@Oct 19 2004, 02:53 AM
Continually may be a "micheal moore stretch", but fact remains that the American foriegn policy under Bush is an intrusive one, that holds the prioritys of america in higher standing than the soveriegnty of foriegn citizens.
|
Thanks for admitting you're wrong, I appreciate that.
The rest of your point is nothing more than a 'yeah but' retort to my point.
|
2 countries in as many years, thats one country ever 2 years on average during bush's term.
Continually may have been a strong word, but im not wrong, no other country, EXPECT for Saddams Irag, which you kindly pointed out has employed a obtrusive foriegn sush as the american model of recent years, as operated in the napoleanic(sp?) way that is bushs america. And Saddam was removed for being deemed dangerous, by YOUR country, yet you praise the policys of the US, dont believe the american intentions are any more noble than that of hussien. [/b][/quote]
Last time i checked the Americans intentions was to insure the safety of all Iraq citizens. And Saddam gassed his own people, i don't recall the US doing that. Also there is a big difference between Saddam's intentions and the US's intentions. One was evil, the other was meant to be good.
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:07 PM
|
#47
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kalispell, Montana
|
Quote:
Originally posted by kipperfan@Oct 19 2004, 03:01 AM
2 countries in as many years, thats one country ever 2 years on average during bush's term.
Continually may have been a strong word, but im not wrong, no other country, EXPECT for Saddams Irag, which you kindly pointed out has employed a obtrusive foriegn sush as the american model of recent years, as operated in the napoleanic(sp?) way that is bushs america. And Saddam was removed for being deemed dangerous, by YOUR country, yet you praise the policys of the US, dont believe the american intentions are any more noble than that of hussien.
|
Ah, so now we have it. The US trampled on the sovereignty of Afghanistan.
Another unjust invasion in your eyes?
I 'praise' the policies of the US? Back that one up too, please. You sure talk big.
__________________
I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:08 PM
|
#48
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:  
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 18 2004, 07:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 18 2004, 07:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 02:20 AM
You talk oodles about the corrupt US government. If you think the rest of the governments of the world (specifically those that opposed action in Iraq) are pure in their motives you are sadly mistaken.
Maybe that's not what you believe, but it sure does come off that way.
|
So is corruption a reason for invasion? I'm not saying Iraq was clean. It was not. But it did not deserve to be invaded for "corruption". If that is the motivation then who gets to invade the US and liberate us from oppression?
 [/b][/quote]
Then what is the motive for invading Iraq? Saddam, IMO was enough of a WMD, he was motive enough.
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:10 PM
|
#49
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 19 2004, 02:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 19 2004, 02:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction@Oct 19 2004, 02:50 AM
Saddam Hussein was told by ambassador April Glaspie that the U.S. was not interested in his dispute with Kuwait and would not stand in his way. Shortly after the green light was given, he invaded. If not for the information Glaspie gave him, it is unlikely that he would have invaded Kuwait.
|
And what was the nature of that 'dispute'?
What a joke. [/b][/quote]
What difference does it make?
The point is that he was told to do whatever, and when Glaspie got back to America, she was quoted as saying; "I didn't think he would take all of it"; - which suggests that he was given approval by her (a representative of the U.S. government) to take at least "some" of Kuwait.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/iraq/gulf_war.html
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might say that it created a nice little pretext for Bush senior to increase American presence in the middle east.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:12 PM
|
#50
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:  
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Oct 18 2004, 07:28 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Oct 18 2004, 07:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 01:51 AM
Clinton needs a permission slip to invade Afghnastan (sp?) because Bush didn't need too.# Or did he ask the UN first?# We all know the UN is corrupt.
I'm sure if Clinton had really pressed the issue he could have invaded Afganastan. (sp?)
|
I'm not talking about permission from the UN (which in no way got in Bush's way on the Afghanistan invasion). I'm talking about permission from his own government and citizens. There is no way that before 9/11 Clinton would have been able to make a case for going into Afghanistan. You think the coalition is small now, it would have been non-existent then. Unless by "pressing the case", you mean fearmongering - then yes, Clinton probably could have made a case. It just isn't something someone should do in a democratic country. A fascist country sure.
After the Afghanistan conflict (which hasn't even finished yet), Bush played on people's fear to invade a country that in no way was threat to America.
BTW, here are some positive reviews for Fahrenheit 9/11. I guess they cancel each other out, right?
http://www.calendarlive.com/movies/la-0517...0,4928772.story
http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=9227
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...DDG357AP2J1.DTL [/b][/quote]
Why does Clinton need a coalition. US is a world power, they don't need help from other countries.
Clinton avoided the issue IMO by shooting the missiles, just to divert the people's attention from, we were attacked, to, we fought back, even if it was a week strike against the terrorists.
He hit how many camps? I'm sure there were hundreds more then the ones he hit, so in retrospect he did nothing to cut short the terrorism.
And i guess they do cancel each other out, although i'll stand by mine.
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:15 PM
|
#51
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kalispell, Montana
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FlamesAddiction+Oct 19 2004, 03:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FlamesAddiction @ Oct 19 2004, 03:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 02:52 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-FlamesAddiction
|
Quote:
@Oct 19 2004, 02:50 AM
Saddam Hussein was told by ambassador April Glaspie that the U.S. was not interested in his dispute with Kuwait and would not stand in his way.# Shortly after the green light was given, he invaded.# If not for the information Glaspie gave him, it is unlikely that he would have invaded Kuwait.
|
And what was the nature of that 'dispute'?
What a joke.
|
What difference does it make?
The point is that he was told to do whatever, and when Glaspie got back to America, she was quoted as saying; "I didn't think he would take all of it"; - which suggests that he was given approval by her (a representative of the U.S. government) to take at least "some" of Kuwait.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/iraq/gulf_war.html
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might say that it created a nice little pretext for Bush senior to increase American presence in the middle east.  [/b][/quote]
What difference does it make?
There was no dispute. That's what difference it makes.
Jesus.
And you are stretching the events and you know damn well you are.
Hilarious.
__________________
I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:15 PM
|
#52
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
|
And at the time, Republicans were frowning on Clinton for attacking at all.
Funny how these things work.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:17 PM
|
#53
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kalispell, Montana
|
Quote:
Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 19 2004, 03:15 AM
And at the time, Republicans were frowning on Clinton for attacking at all.
Funny how these things work.
|
Let's see some proof of that...because I don't remember it that way AT ALL....and I was here.
__________________
I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:17 PM
|
#54
|
Lifetime Suspension
|
Quote:
Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 03:08 AM
Then what is the motive for invading Iraq? Saddam, IMO was enough of a WMD, he was motive enough.
|
Saddam was a known quantity and was not considered a threat ot the region. The US Military leaders reponsible for the region said that over and over. It was ignored and the hawks with in the administration were the motivators for going into Iraq. They turned a situation where they had a toothless lion contained into a a country which is now an incubator for hate. Massive massive strategic error.
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:17 PM
|
#55
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:  
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald@Oct 18 2004, 07:06 PM
I probably explained this wrong, so i'll make it right. My teacher said that Moore is an obvious Left Wing Democrat, and unless he has a Right Wing movie with the same theories as Moore has he won't show the movie. Just like he won't let the Liberals come to our class and enforce their policies upon some kids where most don't know better then agree, he wants them to have all the party candidates come and we could then have a debate. Imagine a debate where only Kerry would answer questions, obviously then no one can get Bush's point of view, and i'm sure you agree with me here, its only right to see both sides of the issue before we decide what to believe. Showing 9/11 doesn't show both sides of the issue.
Well, I think your teacher is a bad teacher. I'm surprised he'll show anything in class with that attitude. The proper approach would have been to show the film, then challenge the students to prove or disprove the basis for the film. This would have allowed the students to do their own research and then present what they believe to be the facts. Not showing it is a dis-service and the loss of a great opportunity to expand the minds of kids and to have them do some quality research.
Thats one of the basis for their campaign election, 9/11 and what Bush has done since and all that. I don't think Moore will dissapear until he is publicly called out, and thats what Micheal Moore hates America is doing. I diagree with everything the Republicans have done is terriable, but i know where you're coming from, but i think any Democrat would have lead the country the same way after the attacks.
Okay, what have the Republicans done that has been good? Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Unfortunately they went in there with insufficient resources to get the job done. Iraq? Well that's been a complete disaster. The economy? That hasn't been very good. Job creation? Bush has created jobs of late, but has created an under-employment issue along with those jobs. Medicare? Its the worst its ever been. Has he united the country? Nope, its more divided now than at any time since the civil war. What has the Bush Administration done that is good?
You also have to understand the Republicans are running a campaign of fear. They cannot fall back on anything else but 911 and a potential terrorist threat. This is the only place where Bush continually has an edge over Kerry and they are using that to their advantage.
I don't agree with opinion, but rather with the statement that "the movie 9/11 is what is helping the keep the election so close." Take that any way you want but i don't think Kerry is wise enough to win the campaign without things like this movie and others media happenings to help him. His record IMO damages his chances to much.
I certainly do not understand your logic here. George Bush got schooled at the debates. He was completely out of his element and it showed. Bush had no command over any of the issues and looked stupid on many occassions. If the Bush administration did not have 911 to fall back on, this would not be a race. The issues are something that Bush just cannot rely upon to run on. His best (No Child Left Behind) has been a failure as there has been no fiscal backing of the initiative. The deficit is enough to lose Bush the election, but he has an ace in the hole (fear) and has been using that effectively. Please tell me which "issues" Bush has been strong on because he has been murdered on that down here.
Clinton responded with a missile attack, that has been reported to have struck a hospital instead of the terror camps. If he would have really acted like you said he could have wiped out the terrorists before they became more powerful. And why does Moore the crucify Bush if he didn't crucify Clinton who you said responded, when Bush obviously responded well. And ground troops would have been a lot better for Clinton to send in and get the job done right. Thats all IMO as well.
Clinton his a hospital? When did that happen? Do you have a link for that because I have never heard of that.
The primary reason that Moore is all over Bush is because he did nothing. He was told of the threat and did nothing. Bush's refusal to do anything, because he hopefully did not believe the threat, is close to being criminal. That is why Moore is all over Bush.
He stretched the truth to far IMO so he can be called a lier. And also considering that his sources have been sometimes also called lies, i'll stand by my opinion that he's a lier. And i don't know about the Honesty issue, to me it seems like honesty doesn't matter as long as he gets his point across.
Where did he stretch the truth to the point of being called a lier? Please feel free to point them out. I have already destroyed Kopel's web site for inaccuracies so I am confident I can point out others. I'm also very open to having lies pointed out to me.
Why call Hannity a lier? Have you listened to his show? To me he may be a Bush supporter but he has backup for every statement many which are true. He is widely recognized as a honest individual so i disagree with him being a lier. And i can't say anything about Coulter because i haven't read her stuff so i won't say anything about her.
Why call Hannity a lier? Because he is. He's a documented lier AND racist. He's been fired from multiple jobs for lying on the air and for promoting racist ideals. How he has a high profile job right now is mind boggling. I guess I should ask you, have you listened to his show or seen Hannity and Colmes? And if so, how? I didn't think FoxNews was available in Canada yet?
I'll stand by not watching the film, i think its too bias and like i was taught when writing a good essay, always show both sides of the issue, i don't think Moore did that.
Well, you do yourself a dis-service then. If you really want to make a good comment on the film, watch it then come back and tell us where the inaccuracies are in your mind. The key there is "in your mind".
|
My teacher is right IMO, because there is no two sides to the issue and in a largely conservative area that is probably what would be needed.
You're talking from a democrat point of view, so obviously the Republicans have done everything wrong, but i don't believe that 9/11 and fear is the sole heart of their campaign.
Kerry's record and flip flops have helped them a lot, as well as many other things Kerry's wife as well as Edwards wife have said.
And Bush did nothing thats why Moore's all over him, i thought Bush invaded two countries one where there was good evidence that Bin Laden was located at. How did he then do nothing?
Iraq hasn't been a complete failure yet, Saddam is out of power, which was the intent of the attack.
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:21 PM
|
#56
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 03:15 AM
What difference does it make?
There was no dispute. That's what difference it makes.
Jesus.
And you are stretching the events and you know damn well you are.
Hilarious.
|
Here we go. This is where Dis starts getting snarky and offensive.
Sure there was a dispute. In fact, there were 3 main disputes that lead to the invasion of Kuwait.
Kuwait had for a long time been considered by Iraq a "rogue" territory of Iraq.
Iraq accused Kuwait of side drilling oil out of Iraq.
Kuwait had renegged on payments it had promised to Iraq to pay for the Iran/Iraq war.
Whether or not they justified annexation is not for me to say, but there was indeed a dispute between Kuwait and Iraq.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:23 PM
|
#57
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kalispell, Montana
|
Cut the crap FlamesAddiction.
I wasn't being offensive in any way, shape or form.
You're little personal vendetta with me is getting old.
The stretching I was referring to was equating a single statement by a diplomat to 'the green light'.
__________________
I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:25 PM
|
#58
|
It's not easy being green!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: In the tubes to Vancouver Island
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+Oct 18 2004, 08:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ Oct 18 2004, 08:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Oct 19 2004, 02:34 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Displaced Flames fan
|
Quote:
@Oct 19 2004, 02:32 AM
Continually? Please back this up.
Saddam was pretty good about stomping on the sovereignty of his neighbors wasn't he?
|
At the urging, and with technical support from guess who.
|
Ah, that's a new one. Never knew that the US government backed and promoted the invasion of mighty Kuwait.
Wow.  [/b][/quote]
How about US support for the invasion of Iran?
__________________
Who is in charge of this product and why haven't they been fired yet?
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:25 PM
|
#59
|
Lifetime Suspension
Join Date: Aug 2004
Exp:  
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Lanny_MacDonald+Oct 18 2004, 08:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Lanny_MacDonald @ Oct 18 2004, 08:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-sjwalter@Oct 19 2004, 03:08 AM
Then what is the motive for invading Iraq? Saddam, IMO was enough of a WMD, he was motive enough.
|
Saddam was a known quantity and was not considered a threat ot the region. The US Military leaders reponsible for the region said that over and over. It was ignored and the hawks with in the administration were the motivators for going into Iraq. They turned a situation where they had a toothless lion contained into a a country which is now an incubator for hate. Massive massive strategic error. [/b][/quote]
A known quality? You call the mass graves part of a known quality? You call slaughtering your own people a known quality?
Yes maybe at one time he was an ally or known quality, but with too much power he had to be ousted, just like Napoleon had to be defeated.
Iraq is way better off without him know Lanny, you should realize that, and Kerry will realize that Iraq needs the stabalization of the troops for quite some time more until everything is cleaned up.
The media largely under Democract influence of course wouldn't tell the American people that Iraq is doing better.
Take a look at these pictures and tell me what you see,
http://www.pbase.com/kburch/the_picture_fr...e_news&page=all
I see Iraqi children doing something they haven't ever experianced before.
In fact i see Iraq striving to be a First World country in the future, but it won't happen if the US troops are pulled home.
And the WMD were there, Saddam just moved them elsewhere before the war began.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20...11235-4438r.htm
|
|
|
10-18-2004, 09:26 PM
|
#60
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kalispell, Montana
|
Quote:
Originally posted by kermitology@Oct 19 2004, 03:25 AM
How about US support for the invasion of Iran?
|
There was no invasion of Iran. There was a war between the two countries. Everyone and their dog knows the US supported Iraq in that war.
Here come the drive bys!
Does anyone remember how I got into this thread or are you all now so focussed on the target that you've forgotten?
I'll wager it's the latter.
__________________
I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:16 AM.
|
|