If there is a war in Iraq, the government after the war won't be needing parts from the Soviets or the French. All that junk would have been destroyed. There are probably more money made on parts. Check your local car dealer's parts & services department. It makes as much or money money for the dealership as the new car sales. The new government in Iraq would then be freindly toward the U.S. and its allies. that means they would be buying our military equipments!

When the atomic bomb was built in the 1940's they had the world smartest scientist not much of clowns in Iraq. Assembling a atomic bomb using necessary tools is much easier than inventing it. So these clowns would need a design, tools, and all the help they can get in order to make the bomb. It is not hard to copy an invention!

"Snapper, do you actually READ the stuff you're posting?"

Do you, or just the sentence fragments that suit your needs?

I didn't know we needed to read the posts
I just reply

Milksnapper

Snapper I've said it before and I'll say it again
"Once again you don't know what you're talking about."

If you think France is going protect Iraq and damage relationship with the U.S. just because they sold some weapons 15-25years ago you'd believe in the Santa Clause too.

Ditto for the Japanese , that NEC computer and cameras crap.

And you have the nerve to tell me I'm wrong. At least you did it respectfully. You might be aware that on another board I call myself the man who's never wrong, and it's littered with dead bodies courtesy of yours truly.

And you say the war is not about oil.
Oh yes it is, but it is far more than that and it is not talked about in the media. And being a citizen of the U.S., I believe it is unpatriotic for me to talk about it now. And I hope the wise ones out there will not talk about it either.

Japan is against the war because the economy is very fragile as it is, and rising oil prices would increases prices of Japanese products and reduce the Japanese's purchasing power it would greatly damage their economy.

Did you guys watch the CBS special w/Saddam. That dude is pretty cool.

Snapper, why are you holding a Pro War Rally when you think the war is about the Jews and the next election? It seems to me you have no idea of the seriousness and costs(not just monetary) of a war.

Not that I'm anti war.
-Dick

By cool I meant it with a bit of irony considering the pressures he's facing. He's very articulate and calm. When was the last time we had a President that composed under fire? ;-)

Doesn't mean Saddam is not a tyrant.

Ok Dickboy, what I posted here I just made up to get under your skin.

To the French and Germans IT IS ABOUT OIL. That is how they are supposed to get paid back for the arms that were sold.

DJ, to strengthen you case about how this war is solely about oil why don't you tell everyone what percentage of US oil imports come from Iraq. I know that number, but do you. I think you are a victim of inheriting your political views from your favorite movie stars(who I must add have no fucking relevance what's so ever).

-"Ok Dickboy, what I posted here I just made up to get under your skin."

No you didn't, you believed it.
Getting nasty huh? Calling me names.

-"To the French and Germans IT IS ABOUT OIL. That is how they are supposed to get paid back for the arms that were sold."

Yeah right. And no, it isn't about oil to them.


"DJ, to strengthen you case about how this war is solely about oil why don't you tell everyone what percentage of US oil imports come from Iraq. I know that number, but do you."

THAT, Snapper... is irrelevant.

And you know from my previous posts I said the war is not solely about the oil.

But you haven't answered why you are holding a pro war rally when you think the war is about the jews and the next election.

-"I think you are a victim of inheriting your political views from your favorite movie stars(who I must add have no fucking relevance what's so ever)."

Hahah, that's just funny. I don't inherit anyone's views.

Snapper, you are so far beneath me intellectually I will not even argue with you.

I was looking through some websites a few weeks ago and stumbled upon one that was a site dealing with all the problems of the world.

I do not remember the name of it but one of the many problems besides not enuff she-males to go around was the oil problem.
they said top scientists claim that gasoline will be scarce in 10 to 15 years and the cost will be around 8 to 10 fucks a gallon.
They claimed at the rate we are using assoline now that the world should be dry in 25 to 30 years.

It was a very intersting website. I am sure Kendricks have stumbled upon it.

It also predicted many countries will war over the oil supply.

Does anyone know this site or have heard similiar stories ??

Milk

"No you didn't, you believed it."

...I believe I know how to get under your skin.

BTW, what is the Hulk's views on the upcoming conflict?

Slippery snapper never responds to my earlier questions.

OK, so the purpose of the US invading Iraq is to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, when Iraq starts to visibly destroy its WPM, like those missiles, that should be a good thing. Bush should be saying: "That's a good start", not "Thanks for taking out your missiles, it will make invading you that much more easy".

Please Explorer. We knew this is what he was going to do.

First he says he has no weapons of mass destruction, and now he says he's going to cooperate. Witch is it? He's been doing this dance with us for the past twelve years. It's way too little way too late.



DJ, you're no Kendrick's, but I'll go along with your baiting just for fun.

First the USA has a responsibility to take care Israel. Now you're supposed to come back with how Israel themselves doesn't comply with UN resolutions. Big difference, Israel poses no threat to the US.

Second, it's a known fact that the president during a successful military campaign will most likely get reelected. I give you the reelection point because I'm sure that the Bush administration has thought the political ramification through. Now you supposed to come back with how George Herbert Walker Bush lost the election after the very successful Dessert Storm. He lost the election because he broke a campaign promise.

Also, one of the first things that the Allied forces is going to do this time IS capture the Iraqi oil fields. Now before you have a chance to say "see I told you so" this is only so the retreating Iraqi forces don't torch them.

Imagine that Saddam is running around with a question mark on his leotard like the Riddler. Then maybe you'll understand things better.

With so many different perspectives and conflicting information of the truth, I do not have a solid stance on whether we should go to war or not, but I would say I lean towards the affirmative.

I do think the peace position has valid arguments, though, and that many people against the war aren't tree hugging hippies.

My own hesistation centers on possible consequences of going to war.

If executed poorly, maybe even if executed well, many people believe a US war on Iraq will divide the world and damage US credibility and support.

What could this mean?
1. An escalating wave of terror attacks at home and abroad. Deterioration of our civil rights. Increased invasion of our privacy. Fear of leaving the US with increasing danger.
2. Switching of alliances due to the perception of an increasingly aggressive and arrogant US. Further cooperation of hostile nations to protect themselves. The next World War.

But who really knows what will happen in the future? If we don't take care of this now, will it be a bigger problem in the future?

Or, will an Iraq war lead to a neverending spiral of death and violence that many of us could not imagine? Will people be afraid to leave their homes?

I don't think the answer is simple at all.

Snapper, I think you misunderstood the missile issue. Iraq disclosed the existence of these missiles when required. The only issue was that the missiles have a nominal range below the threshold stipulated by the UN. Now Bliz and company claim that the missiles could be modified to fly beyond the proscribed range (this is like saying that your 1994 Chevy is a weapon of mass destruction because it could be modified to fly in space and carry bombs). So, Saddam says, 'What the heck, we'll give you that one', and agrees to destroy those missiles, too.

If you are a war hawk, Iraq's behavior is evil, and warrants a pre-emptive strike. If you are rational, its a good thing that Iraq is destroying the missiles prior to a US attack. In fact, if the UN can destroy even more Iraqi weapons, great, let's give them more time to destroy weapons that could be used against us.

Explorer here's what he'll do next...

He'll give up a small fraction of nerve agents, then a small fraction of his bio-warfare. It's his style to take a tiny step in the eleventh hour to buy time when he still has no intention of disarming. He knows exactly how to exploit people's hope for peace.

I can't see Saddam admitting to ownership of a single drop of nerve agent.

As for the destruction of the missiles, he agreed to do so promptly when asked to do so by the UN.

Item one: The P.I. I'm sure the average filapino is against our involvent, primarily out of spite, but I guarantee you this: ever little brown fucking machine bar-girl will come down out of the hills to help support our soldiers and Marines, and the civilians like me who will venture there to help out the cause.

Item two: The Arabian Gulf. Just read a little of the Gulf News every day, my favorite one when I lived in Bahrain and one I still read, at least the letters to the editor and the editorials, every day. http://www.gulfnews.com/

Item three: George Bush. How the almost-illiterate son of a President gets elected by the party that I used to belong too, just because of name recognition and the guilt that the success of Bill Clinton brought on to Republicans who voted for Perot in 1992. The man is dumber than a bag of hammers and has failed at everything he's done in life. If the Republican team can keep it together through 2004 they can go down in history as the 21st century equivilent of the Grant presidency.

Explorer "...he agreed to do so promptly when asked to do so by the UN." He did so only after publicly saying he wouldn't destroy them. By doing so now he is trying to show his sudden, but false change of heart.

Catocony "The man is dumber than a bag of hammers and has failed at everything he's done in life." I'll give you the fact that Bush doesn't have the media savvy the Clinton did, but to say he isn't intelligent is a completely false statement. Maybe to strengthen your case you should list some of Bush's failures. It shouldn't be too hard to find them since he "has failed at everything".

The beginnimng of my Feb 27th 1:42pm post reapplies here.

The ending of my Friday, February 28, 2003 - 12:19 pm post reapplies here -lol

1. Harken Energy
2. Arbusto Energy - Bush Exploration
3. Spectrum 7
4. UTIMCO
5. Punking out on the Texas ANG (getting the only pilot slot available the entire year he joined, then never completing his obligation).

Those are just a few.

DJ, take note from Catocony, he gets information to base his stance on. Catocony thanks for an educated response.

1. Harken Energy ....Ok, I never really understood why Bush was expected to sell his shares of the company after they dropped 25% in August of 1990. Who invests money in order to take a loss? From what it looks like the Bush boys made out pretty good on the deal. I'd hardly call it a failure.

2. Arbusto Energy ....This investment lost somewhere around %80 of it's investors money when it sold itself off to Spectrum 7. Note though that people who invest in oil exploration know that it is a high risk investment.

3. Spectrum 7 ....Spectrum 7 lost $400,000 in it's last four months of operation, then sold itself off to Harken Energy. In the deal Bush received over $250,000 worth of Harken stock as well as being named to the board of directors. He also made $80,000 to $100,000 per year to act as a consultant. He was also allowed to buy Harken stock at %40 below face value. I'm tell'n ya for losing this guy sure is successful. Talk about make'n lemonade.

4. UTIMCO ...he made several hundreds of millions of dollars off this company, plus they were huge supporters of his campaigns. Again, I'd hardly say it was a failure for Bush.

5. Texas Air Nation Guard ....Finally what I feel is a valid point. For those of you who don't know Bush failed to report for duty to his Air Nation Guard unit while he was working on a campaign in Alabama.


The first four you listed only have to do with Bush's business dealings, and judging by his bank account he's doing pretty good. For Christ sakes he sold the Rangers for more than 24 times what he paid for the team. Here are a couple more valid points you could have listed:

1. He was convicted of drunk driving and lied repeatedly to cover up his arrest.

2. His 1972 arrest for cocaine possession

3. Lying under oath in an attempt to cover up a scandal concerning Texas' state commission on funeral homes.

Catocony, thanks again for the educated response.

-snapper-

As you can tell from my previous post I'm not trying to protect Bush's character. As DickJohnson said I do believe what I've posted in this thread(once I started to take it seriously), although I have been overstating my opinion. I just feel it is an interesting debate.

To act with military action, and not to act with military action are both horrible choice's, but I do believe that not acting is the worse choice of the two. What would be best is if Saddam would just fully comply. Not just destroying 4 of his 120 Al Samoud 2 missiles, but an immediate %100 compliance.

Just my thoughts...

I suppose Snapper's idea of success and a smart president is someone who takes off with cash when the company is run to the ground. Just another evidence of Snapper's stupidity. No wonder he's a little fat loserboy in real life.

It doesn't take a genius to realise he's desperately doing Yahoo searches to respond to Catocony's disagreements with his views.

I cannot imagine anyone being more dumb. Just look at this thread!

-First he says "to say the war has anything to do with oil is pure bullshit".

-Then he says "Mexico should get the fuck out of the security counsil" for holding an opinion that's contrary to Bush's.

-Then he says the UN is "irrelevant". We might as well allow any country to attack another then!!

-Then he say France and Germany are supporting Iraq because they sold them some weapons 18-28 years ago. And Japan sold some NEC computers and that's why they are against the war!! ROFL. Causing another poster to say : Snapper, do you actually READ the stuff you are posting? LOL.

-The he picks up on(steal) what I said and says the war IS about the Jews and the next election. But not other factors that I've mentioned. And get this : he is going to hold a Pro War Rally for the Jews and Bush's next election!! LMAO. Making me state he simply does not understand the costs and seriousness of a war.

-He even go as far as to say that it's : because of the "let's give peace a chance" people that the people in world war 2(!?!) and Sept 11th died in vein(his spelling). So all those victims families and loved ones who are in support of peace therefore : caused their loved one to die in vain then huh?

(to be continued, gotta go ;-)
-Dick

"I suppose Snapper's idea of success and a smart president is someone who takes off with cash when the company is run to the ground."

...as I said "As you can tell from my previous post I'm not trying to protect Bush's character."



"-Then he says "Mexico should get the fuck out of the security counsel" for holding an opinion that's contrary to Bush's."

...what I said was "If Mexico has no choice based upon their constitution maybe they should get the fuck off the Security Council." Not that they should get off of it for holding a different opinion, but since they can't have an opinion.



"-Then he says the UN is "irrelevant". We might as well allow any country to attack another then!!"

...they don't enforce their fucking resolutions.



"-Then he say France and Germany are supporting Iraq because they sold them some weapons 18-28 years ago."

...that's fact. It's also fact they are getting repaid via oil. You'll aslo probably find out that they have sold arm much more recently than that.



"he is going to hold a Pro War Rally for the Jews and Bush's next election!!"

...I am??? that's news to me. when and where is it?



"Making me state he simply does not understand the costs and seriousness of a war."

...as I said To act with military action, and not to act with military action are both horrible choice's, but I do believe that not acting is the worse choice of the two. What would be best is if Saddam would just fully comply.




"Just another evidence of Snapper's stupidity. No wonder he's a little fat loserboy in real life."

...You know you're losing a debate when you have to rely on personal attacks(unless it's meant to be light-hearted ribbing). Truth is I'm very successful at what I do.

I'll add one more in reply to this statement:

"Making me state he simply does not understand the costs and seriousness of a war."

Posted by Explorer8939 on February 20, 2003 - 23:39 pm
"...What anyone should do when thinking about a war is to try to rule it out first."

Posted by Snapper on February 21, 2003 - 1:16 am
In Reply to: Nonsense posted by Explorer8939 on February 20, 2003 - 23:39 pm
"I agree with you there. I really wish he would just disarm, but it's not likely going to happen. He's been play'n the U.S. and the U.N. for the past twelve years. What makes you think he'll stop now?"


I've lost family members to war. I know the costs of war. I also know the value of innocent American lives. Yes, I stated the following dates before, December 7, 1941, February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001. These dates all have one thing in common. They are the dates that undeclared acts of war happened on US soil. I strongly feel it is in the best interest of our nation not to allow a country obtain weapons while knowing that the USA is the first country that they'll want to use these weapons on. How many more tragic dates needed to be added to that list before we learn?

Quote : "...I am??? that's news to me. when and where is it?" -Snapper, denying he has ever said he was going to hold a pro war rally.

More evidence of his stupidity. Look at the thread above and Snapper clearly stated he is going to hold a pro war rally!

By Snapper on Thursday, February 20, 2003 - 11:44 am: Edit
"How soon people forget.

BTW, I'll be holding a Pro-War rally in the Zona in about three weeks. You guys are welcome to join in the fun."

Gnome:"Snapper, do you actually READ the stuff you post?" It seems like you do not even REMEMBER the stuff you post. It's even more ironic because right before that you said " How soon people forget."(!!!). Snapper, we don't forget, you do. Seriously Stupid Snapper. ROFL.

-Dick

DingleBerry, read the next two posts.

Posted by MasterBates on February 21, 2003 - 23:02 pm
...died in "VAIN," not died in vein. Nevertheless good posting, and I'll see you there at the pro-war rally. (I hope you're serious, because I honestly will show if there is one)


Posted by Snapper on February 23, 2003 - 5:30 am
...literally

No, I was just kid'n about the rally. I would feel it's too disrespectful to go to another country for a protest against their political stance...


When you have a chance look up this word, "SARCASM". I have a tendency to use it from time to time.

Right now France, Germany and Russia is not yielding(and most likely will not) , China will abstain from voting because of Powell's, ahem, diplomacy(wink wink). Turkey changed their minds. So it is very interesting to see how Dubya is going to get his war. He is not going to be happy until he personally searches SH's anus for WMD. And even then he will want war! LOL.

The possibility of terrorism is enormous, so GWB set up Homeland with bull dog faced Tom Ridge, pissing FBI & CIA off.

Snapper, you are watching this thread every minute? Oh sure, everything you said when someone else pointed out it's stupid, whether it's your rally or France and Japan selling weapons(Feb 23) you just say you were joking, yeah sure. Yer not only dumb but also dishonest.

You were thinking of getting a few mongers to protest with you in TJ's zona didn't you Snapper? And get some kuchi on the side.

Best bumper sticker I've seen so far:

Make love, not war
Lick Bush in twenty-o-four.

OG

Dr. Strangelove Kissinger vs Zbig was interesting TV this AM. Hawk and Dove, you can imagine, but both with very powerful arguments.

It's a Hobson's choice. Major risks in all directions.

I'm leaning towards the Hawk argument because I think it will help my wallet and I can buy more girls.

Sick, huh?

"Oh sure, everything you said when someone else pointed out it's stupid, whether it's your rally or France and Japan selling weapons(Feb 23) you just say you were joking, yeah sure. Yer not only dumb but also dishonest."
...ok, I must be dumb because I don't recall saying(nor can I find where I said) I was joking about France and Japan selling weapons. Note, I never said Japan sold weapons, I said they sold components needed to manufacture weapons. If you are referring to this post:
Ok Dickboy, what I posted here I just made up to get under your skin.

To the French and Germans IT IS ABOUT OIL. That is how they are supposed to get paid back for the arms that were sold.
Again, SARCASM. The second sentence (ESPECIALLY WHAT'S IN CAPS) should have made it abundantly clear that I was being sarcastic in the first sentence.

And you are the only person to reply to the Pro-War rally statement besides Masterbates and Batster, and I must add they did NOT say it was stupid. Also I must note, that I responded(to a rally reply) saying I was joking a full fucking week before anyone(anyone means only you DJ) responded negatively to that post.
Another nice attempt at trying to twist my statements around for your own convenience, and you say I'm dishonest.

This could have been a good thread. Where people can discuss their views of the current events and differences in ideology. Being allowed to have different thoughts and opinions and being able to express them is one of the things that make this country great.

DJ, when I said "I think you are a victim of inheriting your political views from your favorite movie stars" it was because you posts have no substance. You respond to posts with how stupid and wrong people's thoughts on certain subjects are, but you never say why, nor do you add any of your own ideas on those subjects.

Earlier in this thread I referred to you as "DickBoy". I used DickBoy as a callback to Kendrick's reply to this same kind of personal attack under a different thread. You personally attack people for having different ideas and thoughts, and then you are too scared to offer any ideas of your own, as if others will start posting the same kind of personal attacks against you. You make plenty of one line statements, but never back them up with any substance.

BTW, don't say that you're not going to offer any of your own thoughts on this subject because you're so intellectually above me, because if I were to reply to that kind of substance-less personal attack again I'd just say "Prove It".


-little fat loserboy-

Ldvee,

If we go to war, it will help our wallets. If we decide not to go to war, it will help our wallets. Sitting on the fucking fence, regardless of your position, is kicking the snot out of the markets, business planning and is keeping everyone in at least a semi-shitty mood. And that is why my wallet is not too happy these days.

The present situation is a good example of fucked-up foreign policy implementation. Something, quite honestly, I thought would be of little concern with a Republican administration. If it's not an absolute emergancy, which Iraq is not, get your ducks in a fucking row in regards to allies, war plans, etc before announcing what you hope to do. If the Bushies would have worked out a couple of little details like basing permissions, allied financial and military commitments and domestic support before going down this road six months ago, the situation wouldn't be as fucked as it is now.

What you say makes sense. I've always wished that things could have been worked a little more behind the scenes instead on the front pages. I think you get more wiggle room that way. I've heard that back during the Cuban missle crises there was a quiet little deal between us and the Soviets for us to remove intermediate range missles from Turkey pointed at the Soviets and that helped the Soviets decide not to run the blockade and remove the missles from Cuba.

Life's a compromise, at least mine has been.

So fuck Milky ???

No one has any thoughts on my post
Perhaps I should beat up on Snappy or DJ to get some responses ??


Milkywhoissadnoonelubbahimorhisposts

I do not personally attack people for different views. I point out unbearable stupidity. There'a huge difference.

-Dick

(And the stupid people cry "Personal Attack", "Rodney King, Rodney King".)

I encourage different view points, asking if people think the war will/should happen.

At the start, I merely pointed out Snapper do not know what he is talking about. Which I'm right on target. Snapper, you are the first one to start name calling.

I'm not so much amused by your holding a pro war rally but more so by your REASON for doing such. You clearly stated the war is not about the oil, it is about the Jews and the next election. Then why are you holding the rally? Are you a Jew? Are you a relative of Bush? Neither. Sound like you are Ari Fleisher's brainwashed servant.

Snapper is so inconsistent. He say one thing and then says he never said it. Then he says he did say it but it was sarcasm, but this is what he really means. Then he says what he really meant was also sarcasm. How can you take anyone like that seriously?

And stop kissing Kendricks asshole(for the second time), Snapper. I haven't seen him coming to you rescue. Just because I had a disagreement with him before.

And Snapper, you are the one jamming the airwaves with nonsense. If you don't shut up, it's just funnier. You're better off just posting your silly cartoons.

I have much to say about this subject of the war incl. inside information. However why should I talk about it in the presence of idiots like Sn---. Snapper's trying to provoke me to , won't work.

As to the Incredible Hulk, what, I can't post a trailor link? And remember Dick Johnson everytime you see him. Snapper, when summer comes, remember he can squash you into the puddle of mayonaise that you are.

-Dick J
(Over and out)

Saddam Hussein is scum and the world will be a better place without him. That taking him out will democratize the whole middle east, and give us access to cheaper oil is a huge bonus.
The French are lowlife scum with an inferiority complex as long as my arm. They hate seeing us on top of the world, and their politicians do not want the ammount of contact they have had with Iraq coming out.

Trust me, ldvee, things ARE working behind the scenes. What is on the front page is just to satisfy the curiosity of the masses. There's a lot that not being reported. But I don't want to say too much cuz I'm going to be traveling again to some communist countries. Also I don't want to be anti-American.

Gas prices are over $2/gallon, making Americans want the oil.

If we get the war, yes, buckaroos for all at the cost of terrorism and negative US opinion. The US opinion might improve as we make Iraq a better place(or some would say at least make it seem that way). We may be building a lot of things there like roads, railroads, school, hospitals etc. Our hundred thousand troops will be there and stay there for sure, for quite a little while. But it is much more complicated than that. And I'm sure the wise ones out there will know what not to say.

Right now there are 3 countries(Russia, France, China) all with veto power strongly against the war. And Turkey is not letting us use it's land, despite the offer of billions from US and being so darn close to an agreement. So these are very serious obstacles. Bush said he will press ahead. If that cannot be done. It's quite an embarassment to all(Bush, Powell, Cheney). But they'll say : we got Saddam to disarm.

Right now Saddam is no longer destroying his surface to surface missiles, which he was actually allowed to posses. He destroyed only 10 of those out of at least 140. He wants a promise from Bush that there will be no attack if he destroys those missiles. Bush refused and calls it Saddam's 'game of deception'. Now whose game of deception is it? If Saddam destroys his surface to surface missiles-which are allowed, then US attacks will catch Saddam's troops with their pants down.

So now the Emirates(lots of hot hookers there) press for Saddam to resign. THAT, I hope is the ultimate outcome. Set Saddam up for life, avert a war, and U.S. becomes the controlling force in Iraq. Saddam refused strongly but we'll see.

Mistake, (France, Germany, Russia.) Duh, thinking of visiting China.

I think that we should attack Iraq before they destroy all their missiles, so that WE get to destroy their missiles. Now, THAT'S worth risking our troops for!

Milky,

We saw your post about all of the she-males going dry or something or other. You should be using water-based lube, not oil-based, in the first place, so you should be o-kay for now.

Thanks Catocony
I can always count on you for your support
besos

Milquetoast

"At the start, I merely pointed out Snapper do not know what he is talking about. Which I'm right on target."

Hey look kids, another one line comment followed by no substance.


"You clearly stated the war is not about the oil, it is about the Jews and the next election. Then why are you holding the rally? Are you a Jew? Are you a relative of Bush? Neither. Sound like you are Ari Fleisher's brainwashed servant."

You clearly stated that the war IS about oil and in your style followed that comment up with no substance to support it. BTW, what's wrong with Jews? Would you say you're a touch on the anti-Semitic side?


And stop kissing Kendricks asshole(for the second time), Snapper. I haven't seen him coming to you rescue. Just because I had a disagreement with him before.

I didn't bring up Kenny for him to come to my rescue. I brought up Kenny to point out your consistency of attacking people personally instead of intellectually.


And Snapper, you are the one jamming the airwaves with nonsense. If you don't shut up, it's just funnier. You're better off just posting your silly cartoons.

Hey look kids, another one line comment. Since you're so intellectually soupier take this following comment and tell everyone how it's nonsense:

I've lost family members to war. I know the costs of war. I also know the value of innocent American lives. Yes, I stated the following dates before, December 7, 1941, February 26, 1993 and September 11, 2001. These dates all have one thing in common. They are the dates that undeclared acts of war happened on US soil. I strongly feel it is in the best interest of our nation not to allow a country obtain weapons while knowing that the USA is the first country that they'll want to use these weapons on. How many more tragic dates need to be added to that list before we learn?

You're right, I should stick to cartoons. At least then you'd have a chance of understanding my posts.


"I have much to say about this subject of the war incl. inside information. However why should I talk about it in the presence of idiots like Sn---. Snapper's trying to provoke me to , won't work."

As I said, you're afraid to offer your own ideas. You're fucking pathetic. All you can do is attack other people ideas with a one line comment. If you had something of substance to say you'd say it. I know you want to save a couple of those last brain cells, but laying off the stem pipe would accomplish the same thing.



Right now Saddam is no longer destroying his surface to surface missiles, which he was actually allowed to posses. He destroyed only 10 of those out of at least 140. He wants a promise from Bush that there will be no attack if he destroys those missiles. Bush refused and calls it Saddam's 'game of deception'. Now whose game of deception is it?

Here's a good example of how to responded civilly to someone else's thoughts with some of you own. First of all those missiles have a traveling distance of 5 times what he is allowed to have as stated in one of the prior 17 irrelevant UN Resolutions. As, I've stated before "It's his style to take a tiny step in the eleventh hour to buy time when he still has no intention of disarming. " Remember he still has 5000 tons of VX, tens of thousands of liters of Anthrax, and 550 Mustard Gas shells to account for. So, whose game of deception is it?

I can't comment on the pevious theories. What I can say I have been traveling in Asia, India and south east Asia since 1972.

Locals always say that that muslims are dangerous and cause most of the problems there.

What do you think?

All power diverted to the deflector shields. LOL

I'm going to just ignore Snapper from now on or it'll never end. We all know that he is one of the dumbest, if not THE dumbest guy around. This thread is actually pretty interesting if you(have the time to) read it from the top down.

LOL, Deflector shields .

Muslims. Hmm.. my take.
Do you see Buddists flying airplanes into buildings?
Do you see Christians strapping themselves with bombs and blowing people up?
Do you see Hindus driving truck bombs into buildings?
Do you see Catholics planting bombs and blowing up nightclubs?

I suppose one can draw their own conclusions.

My opinion: Saddam is a bad guy, but not half as bad as Stalin so that can't be the reason we're going after him. If the World's police is serious about making Earth a peaceful planet, it should look harder at N. Korea, and Iran, which by the way, are by far more of a threat than dickhead Saddam. These two countries MIGHT also use their weapons against us and do we want to wait and find out if they will? The doomsday scenario has always work to stablish religion and just as you sinners might go to hell if you don't pray, give money to the Church, and read the Bible, you might as well die if you don't attack Iraq before he launches a biological attack against us. Many things MIGHT happen, but they're not likely to happen and if you know anything about self-interest, for any country there is nothing more stupid to do than to attack someone who can crash you in a blink of an eye.

The most popular reason people think we're going to war is for to protect OUR oil. At least that's what they want us to believe. Basic physics reveals that energy cannot be created nor be destroyed. Alternative sources of energy far more efficient could have been put in place and use by the masses many years ago. C. Fusion, the Phoenix project (www.phoenixproject.net), and even a device that takes energy from the ether and converts into useful electricity, once proposed by Tesla, could be available within the next 2-3 years. In this case, the talking head have cut-down on our opinions for energy as if it only be obtained from oil. In short, I don't buy the oil story either.

We're too caught up in the momement and don't think about the consequences. One of the major consequences of going to war aren't great either as this is going to only give terrorists more reasons to go after us.

I would like to think that our governement is really smart and it knows what it's doing, but I have several reasons that going against that warm thought...Therefore, war in this case doesn't seem to me like a functional action.