20th March 2003, 1:42 AM
He is the repeating like the little tweeting bird...
Did you listen to that clip? It will hurt, I warn you.
Were Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Lybia, Sudan, and those other nations served with a UN mandate demanding their complete and total disarmament?
No. That is why we're going to war, you ignorant twit. Saddam had twelve damn years to do what he was told, and he could have avoided this war TWICE recently. He seems just fine with the prospect. Maybe because he plans to unleash the weapons you claim he doesn't have. Iraq is unique among all those banana republics you mentioned because they are not under orders to disarm (and obviously not refusing). Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN repeatedly and never had any intention of living up to the mandate. And as long as he has those weapons, he is definitely a threat to us.
And if we did go into those nations with the intention of freeing the people, you cowards would take to the streets and burn flags and moan about America being a warmonger.
Oil revenues will help rebuild Iraq. Honesty, man, get over yourself. The oil angle is laughably ridiculous, in many ways, it is nothing more than a weak, cowardly attack with no basis in reality. If he were really after oil, we'd already be drilling in ANWR. That you stick to the oil topic so fervently is damning testimony to just how pitiful the anti-war movement, and your own personal convictions, really are. There are so many ways of obtaining oil that are cheaper and less risky, that your argument is just plain stupid, idiotic, and indicative of subhuman thinking.
Let's see. France announces prior to the vote on Bush's proposal that they will veto anything he submits. Chirac and his posse insult America and the free world by kissing Saddam's ass just to preserve their lucrative sixty billion dollar oil contract that they have with Iraq. But that's just fine and dandy. It's a great idea for France to support terrorism for oil, but it's a sin to destroy a terrorist because you think oil is the objective. Nice double standard there.
Again, listen to that radio clip.
Did you listen to that clip? It will hurt, I warn you.
Quote: Do I see the US sending the army into Myanmar? Zimbabwe? Saudi Arabia? Iran? North Korea? Cuba? Syria? Lybia? Sudan? Or plenty of other nations in Africa and the Middle East? Nope... and they shouldn't unless those nations directly threaten us in a strong way, and act on it. Sadaam has not met that...
Were Myanmar, Zimbabwe, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Syria, Lybia, Sudan, and those other nations served with a UN mandate demanding their complete and total disarmament?
No. That is why we're going to war, you ignorant twit. Saddam had twelve damn years to do what he was told, and he could have avoided this war TWICE recently. He seems just fine with the prospect. Maybe because he plans to unleash the weapons you claim he doesn't have. Iraq is unique among all those banana republics you mentioned because they are not under orders to disarm (and obviously not refusing). Saddam thumbed his nose at the UN repeatedly and never had any intention of living up to the mandate. And as long as he has those weapons, he is definitely a threat to us.
And if we did go into those nations with the intention of freeing the people, you cowards would take to the streets and burn flags and moan about America being a warmonger.
Quote:I will maintain that gas stands out VERY clearly as the primary reason for this war.
And going to war to secure the 300 million or so barrels of oil that are in Iraq is both irresponsible and insane... and the rest of the world sees that.
Oil revenues will help rebuild Iraq. Honesty, man, get over yourself. The oil angle is laughably ridiculous, in many ways, it is nothing more than a weak, cowardly attack with no basis in reality. If he were really after oil, we'd already be drilling in ANWR. That you stick to the oil topic so fervently is damning testimony to just how pitiful the anti-war movement, and your own personal convictions, really are. There are so many ways of obtaining oil that are cheaper and less risky, that your argument is just plain stupid, idiotic, and indicative of subhuman thinking.
Quote: There is one thing that really stands out. President Bush is a man with very strong convictions. He has opinions and believes in them utterly... and that doesn't sound so bad, until you relalize HOW utterly that is. To Bush, he is RIGHT. He clearly has NO doubt in his mind that he is RIGHT and everyone else (like the huge number of foreign leaders and peoples who disagree with him) are WRONG. So he dismisses their opinions offhand, insults them ("old europe"), and then goes off with his buddies on his way to the shootout at the Iraq Corral...
Let's see. France announces prior to the vote on Bush's proposal that they will veto anything he submits. Chirac and his posse insult America and the free world by kissing Saddam's ass just to preserve their lucrative sixty billion dollar oil contract that they have with Iraq. But that's just fine and dandy. It's a great idea for France to support terrorism for oil, but it's a sin to destroy a terrorist because you think oil is the objective. Nice double standard there.
Again, listen to that radio clip.
YOU CANNOT HIDE FOREVER
WE STAND AT THE DOOR
WE STAND AT THE DOOR