What You Need To Believe To Be a Republican

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

15. Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)

16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

17. Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.

:howdy: How is the AFL-CIO these days? Are you working the Delphi deal? Maybe Delta airlines?

What You Need To Believe To Be a Republican

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

15. Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)

16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

17. Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.


...all of this gibberish because the truth hurts too much.

:lmao:

What You Need To Believe To Be a Republican

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

15. Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)

16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

17. Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.


:howdy: Sparx!!! Did ya' get my PM? :howdy: :yahoo: :smoochy:

:howdy: Sparx!!! Did ya' get my PM? :howdy: :yahoo: :smoochy:
A PM is probably not going to get through the tin foil helmet. Perhaps you could try zapping him with your radar detector.

What You Need To Believe To Be a Republican

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

4. The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.

5. A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches, while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

7. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

8. A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

9. Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy, but providing health care to all Americans is socialism. HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

10. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

11. A president lying about an extramarital affair is a impeachable offense, but a president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

12. Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

13. The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

14. Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.

15. Supporting "Executive Privilege" for every Republican ever born, who will be born or who might be born (in perpetuity.)

16. What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

17. Support for hunters who shoot their friends and blame them for wearing orange vests similar to those worn by the quail.

:cheers: That's a good start!

A PM is probably not going to get through the tin foil helmet. Perhaps you could try zapping him with your radar detector.


No he probably has a detector, detector detecting my detector :biggrin: And : :smack: he doesn't have a tin foil helmet :razz: :lol:

3. Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is Communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
Wasn't that instituted by a Democrat?

What You Need To Believe To Be a Republican

1. Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.





Ironically - it's posts like these that are the reason I'm NOT a democrat.

As a Democrat:

1. You have to believe the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

2. You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

3. You have to believe that guns, in the hands of law-abiding Americans, are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese communists.

4. You have to believe that there was no art before Federal funding.

5. You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural

7. You have to be against capital punishment but support abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy

8. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity and jobs.

9. You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside Seattle do.

10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11. You have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

12. You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Constitution.

13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high

14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, General Robert E. Lee or Thomas Edison

15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

16. You have to believe Hillary Clinton is really a lady

17. You have to believe that after 40 years of trying, the only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge, and that big government always knows better than you.

18. You have to believe conservatives telling the truth belong in jail; but a liar, sex offender and draft dodger belongs in the White House.

19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites and bestiality should be constitutionally protected and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.

20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic party funding by the Chinese is somehow in the best interest of the United States.

21. You have to believe Mr. Clinton "did not have sex with that woman". (Try telling that to your wife or husband.

22. You have to believe Richard Nixon obstructed justice by having an 18 1/2 minute gap in one tape of his recorded conversations, but that it was only an innocent mistake that one year's worth of Al Gore's e-mails got erased. (And wouldn't you know that these e-mails of Al's just happen to be the ones subpoenaed by a White House committee and a federal grand jury in their continuing investigation of campaign finance abuses and other matters)


23. And lastly...... You have to believe Hillary's Rose Law Firm's billing records, under subpoena, could not be found for three years, but suddenly turned up on a coffee table in the White House.

What you need to believe to be a Democrat:

Somehow, you have to believe that:
1. Jesus loves you, and wants you to show it by aborting your unborn child.

2. The United States should let the United Nations rule our country. I mean, who could do it better than the Ghanans and the Libyans?

3. "Standing Tall for America" means rioting in the streets whenever you don't get your way.

4. A woman can be trusted with decisions about
her own body, and somehow we've decided that a woman's child IS her own body to suck the brains out of as she sees fit.

5. Being a drug addict is the preferred method of dealing with your problems, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then
we'll do everything in our power to have you executed.

6. The best way to improve military morale is to
call them "baby killers".

7. Group sex and drug use are what you should be doing. If you're not doing these things, you're a prude and out of touch with reality.

8. If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex. And we want adolescents to have sex more than anything in the world. How else are we supposed to keep the welfare roles filled?

9. A good way to fight terrorism is to ignore it, because if we don't, they won't like us anymore.

10. HMOs and insurance companies are the saving grace of the health industry. I mean, look at Canada and how well it's working over there.

11. Providing health care to all Iraqis is stupid. We got rid of their leader - what more do they want?

12. Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are real, no matter what the scientists say.

13. It's okay that Bill Clinton pardoned terrorists, campaign contributors and his own brother.

14. Saddam was a bad guy when Clinton lobbed a few missiles at him. Then he became a good guy when Bush did the same.

15. A president lying about an extramarital affair is to be expected. After all, EVERYONE lies about sex.

16. Government should limit itself to complete and total rule of the life of every American. Unless the President is a Republican. Then all government officials should resign and let the Democrats rule.

17. The public has a right to know exactly how many minutes George Bush spent in the National Guard, but no right to probe into Bill Clinton taking campaign money from the Chinese.

18. You support states' rights, unless that state wants to limit abortion. Then that state should be invaded, it's leaders killed and every citizen of that state should be "re-educated"..

19. What George Bush did in January of 2001 is of vital national interest. What Bill Clinton did in December of 2000 is irrelevant.

20. Trade with Cuba is wrong, unless we can trade Fidel Castro for George Bush.

AND 21. Voting Democrat is the ONLY way for blacks to get ahead. And by "ahead", we mean getting Democrats elected and putting money in Jesse Jackson's pocket.

BO-ring..... (http://forums.somd.com/showthread.php?t=28257) You could at least be original and post something we haven't already seen 6 bazillion times.

:tantrum: Y'all chased him away again :tantrum:

:tantrum: Y'all chased him away again :tantrum:
:lmao: It was easy. Besides, he ran. If he had the brains to post something original that can't be torn apart by 7th graders, he'd hang out & spar. Instead, he's a :loser:

Just knowing that Larry, Vrai, 2A, SHARAB, and tomchamp/JollyRoger/gay-prison-sex-bang-boy are Republicans are enough to make me a Democrat for life.

Just knowing that Larry, Vrai, 2A, SHARAB, and tomchamp/JollyRoger/gay-prison-sex-bang-boy are Republicans are enough to make me a Democrat for life.
...and you're in such great company. Are you McKinnys hair stylist?? :duh:

...and you're in such great company. Are you McKinnys hair stylist?? :duh:

You're just mad cause you feel left out...aren't ya!

OK...add Mikeinsmd too.

You're just mad cause you feel left out...aren't ya! OK...add Mikeinsmd too.
I'm very proud to be a member of the common sense party. I'll profess my allegiance any day. Dems continue to make fools of themselves daily. I love it!! :lmao:

I'm very proud to be a member of the common sense party. I'll profess my allegiance any day. Dems continue to make fools of themselves daily. I love it!! :lmao:

We've all seen what your party has accomplished since 2000. If you are proud of THAT record...then you are the eternal optimist. The perfect sheep.

I've said it before, and say it here again. Ignorance IS bliss.

While I'm here..I've noticed all of you have failed to mention the news of the day. I will mention it tomorrow.

Of course I already know your response.

"Baaaahhhhhh"

We've all seen what your party has accomplished since 2000. If you are proud of THAT record...then you are the eternal optimist. The perfect sheep.

I've said it before, and say it here again. Ignorance IS bliss.

While I'm here..I've noticed all of you have failed to mention the news of the day. I will mention it tomorrow.

Of course I already know your response.

"Baaaahhhhhh"

Duh...2000?? I believe there was a master at eff-ups in the White House all of 2000..or make that two..talk about sheep, you got the wool over your eyes from DU,methinks..Hows it feel to be used??

I work daily with a Dem.... I am proud to say, he now... denounces his party! :lmao:

We've all seen what your party has accomplished since 2000. If you are proud of THAT record...then you are the eternal optimist. The perfect sheep. I've said it before, and say it here again. Ignorance IS bliss. While I'm here..I've noticed all of you have failed to mention the news of the day. I will mention it tomorrow. Of course I already know your response. "Baaaahhhhhh"
wow!! A guy who's ass is on the line, points the finger somewhere else. :duh:

Wonder if he'll get a hairdo, smack a black cop, scream racisim, realize what a fool he's become, offer a pitiful apology (not to the cop) and continue to be ripped to shreds by HIS main stream media? :baaaaaahhhhh:

Maybe he'll let loose with a :deanscream: or buy a hunting vest & pretend to be a hunter?? :killingme

We've all seen what your party has accomplished since 2000. If you are proud of THAT record...then you are the eternal optimist. The perfect sheep.

I've said it before, and say it here again. Ignorance IS bliss.

While I'm here..I've noticed all of you have failed to mention the news of the day. I will mention it tomorrow.

Of course I already know your response.

"Baaaahhhhhh"

Since it is only the "news of the day" on DU, why would rational people care?

Who really takes anything "Scooter" says seriously anyway?

Just knowing that Larry, Vrai, 2A, SHARAB, and tomchamp/JollyRoger/gay-prison-sex-bang-boy are Republicans are enough to make me a Democrat for life.
Temper temper, little man :huggy:

Who really takes anything "Scooter" says seriously anyway?
What Scooter testified to was probably the truth. However you have to read the actual document and transcript to realize...

Aw, what the heck. I'll wait and see if Kerad reads them. :whistle:

:jameo:

Nice job, all. Predictable as always.

:lmao:

:jameo:

Nice job, all. Predictable as always.

:lmao: As long as the Democratic Paarty refuses to denounce JPC, you have spoken. Carry on, Bi##h!

:jameo:

Nice job, all. Predictable as always.

:lmao:

Your usual out, thats pretty pathetic.

:jameo: Nice job, all. Predictable as always. :lmao:
We are predictable. Imagine that!! :jet: If you wanna do something productive, tell us why the DU boots any pub that goes in & presents facts?? :confused:

Your usual out, thats pretty pathetic.

You are NOT paying attention. More to come tomorrow. Be sure to stock up on your OxyContin so you can be like Rush.

Have a GREAT night!

You are NOT paying attention. More to come tomorrow. Be sure to stock up on your OxyContin so you can be like Rush.

Have a GREAT night!

Yo, chucklehead, read some history before ya come back.. :popcorn:

You are NOT paying attention. More to come tomorrow. Be sure to stock up on your OxyContin so you can be like Rush.

Have a GREAT night! Aw, Cr@p, I just left you Red and forgot to sign it. I told you that what you are doing, stopping in to drop a bomb then leaving until tomorrow, is exactly what Vrai accuses you of doing.

If you don't want to be known as a hit and run liberal, why don't you show up with an argument and facts?

You are NOT paying attention. More to come tomorrow. Be sure to stock up on your OxyContin so you can be like Rush.
Get lots of sleep tonight, sweetie, and make sure you floss before bed. :huggy:

Aw, Cr@p, I just left you Red and forgot to sign it. I told you that what you are doing, stopping in to drop a bomb then leaving until tomorrow, is exactly what Vrai accuses you of doing.

If you don't want to be known as a hit and run liberal, why don't you show up with an argument and facts?

It's not "hit and run". I originally stated TOMORROW. I have a life beyond this board. If you want to join in tomorrow, then please do. If not..then read all about it at your leisure. I am not limited by your attention span.

The facts I will present will not change in the meantime.

It's not "hit and run". I originally stated TOMORROW. I have a life beyond this board. If you want to join in tomorrow, then please do. If not..then read all about it at your leisure. I am not limited by your attention span.

The facts I will present will not change in the meantime. I hope you do come with facts. I'd love to see a debate based on facts around here. Are you willing to debate, or will you drop off your "facts" and leave as usual?

The facts I will present will not change in the meantime.
Kerad, it would please me to no end if you'd actually come up with a factual case against Bush. Seriously. Because I can do it all day long and I VOTED for the guy, so you surely can come up with SOMETHING.

We've all seen what your party has accomplished since 2000. If you are proud of THAT record...then you are the eternal optimist. The perfect sheep.

I've said it before, and say it here again. Ignorance IS bliss.

While I'm here..I've noticed all of you have failed to mention the news of the day. I will mention it tomorrow.

Of course I already know your response.

"Baaaahhhhhh"
Let me make your day. I jumped ship and switched parties because of the Clinton era. I am mostly a middle of the road type citizen, not completely aligned with either party, and I had chosen the Democrats back when I registered because at that time they seemed to fight more for the people. That has changed and now it seems that they just fight because they can which results in little to nothing good happening for the nation.

Truly since 1994 when they lost the House they have been the party of the spoiled and spiteful. This only intensified with the 2000 Presidential defeat and the final straw came in 2002 when they lost the Senate making it a Republican clean sweep. Since then the Democrats have become the crying over spilled milk types that just can’t get over it. They are the keepers of the grudge and have been nothing but hateful towards those in disagreement with them. It seems to me that they would rather destroy themselves and all that they used to stand for rather than being seen as cooperating in the process of governing the nation.

And I, for one, am proud of how the nation has been since 2000. Completely satisfied? No, but absolutely proud. Finally someone is taking real action after our being attacked and taking the war to those that were doing harm to our interests and people. This was something that was dreadfully lacking during Clinton’s time. The “you’re either with us or against us” declaration of foreign policy was and is how we should interact with the world. No more capitulating with ransom payments to the piss-ant nations Clinton had us bowing to. We now have leadership that uses their balls for more than personal gratification.

News of the day, I guess you mean “Scooter” Libby’s claims? I think I’ve read a thread about that. Information leaks happen, some are intentional for specific purposes. So what, I have yet to see or read where anyone has said that all is perfect with Bush and what he has done while in office. Some hardcore Republican’s dislike him more then you. But as to these claims why not wait and see how it plays out or are you ready just to condemn Bush in the manner that had you crying and whining when it was your hero that was having his toes held to the fire. Isn’t that what you demanded for your man? I know it’s what I demanded for Clinton right here on these forums when he was facing accusations. I ask, should it be any different for Bush?

If you don't want to be known as a hit and run liberal, why don't you show up with an argument and facts?Because it takes balls to stay and debate facts and he's unarmed. :shrug:

Here's your big chance!

What does each of you think about the immigration debate?

What should we, the people, want to have done?

(notice the word 'feel' is not used)

Be heard, not a nerd!

Why does it not surprise me that defining "Why I am a Democrat" *should* be re-titled "Why I am NOT a Republican".

Amidst some of the absurd stereotypes and silliiness, the over-arching message is still - I'm only a Democrat because the alternative is to be 'this'. (Which even if true, is ridiculous - it's like saying I'm a Muslim because I don't want to be a Christian).

Although I'm actually registered as a Democrat, I'm conservative. But I tend to vote Republican mostly because of something this little bit (which I've seen before and actually, somewhere on this computer, I have an old reply to) loudly but subtly proclaims....

The Democrats themselves don't have a compelling case for joining their side - which was the same strategy in the 2004 election. Vote AGAINST that guy by voting for "us".

I realize it's "humor" - just as the 'rebuttal' (which I've also mostly seen before) is - but it IS true - the Democrats cannot make a compelling case for what they do believe, because it's merely a hodgepodge of being against Republican ideas.

At least the Communists know what they believe.

News of the day, I guess you mean “Scooter” Libby’s claims? I think I’ve read a thread about that. Information leaks happen, some are intentional for specific purposes.
Yes apparently everyone in the Bush administration lies, except when a guy accused of perjury tattles on his boss to save his skin. Just like the Dan Rather story - I will *wait* on this before passing judgment. If it turns out to be YET ANOTHER BUST - it will make the Democrats look even MORE stupid, because they're so damned eager to go after this President, they'll splash this across the planet before the details are learned.

I am concerned - but - I am surprised that while liberal AND conservative radio hosts and bloggers were ALL OVER this story yesterday - they're silent, mostly, this morning. All I've seen is one person saying that nothing in any of the material Bush was declared by Libby to have de-classified has *anything* to do with Valerie Plame. Not related. So crowing about this might make a Bush-basher look massively stupid if they keep harping about it.

I'm just gonna sit back and watch for a bit.

2. Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

Remember, Saddam was hiding WsMD so we had to invade Iraq to find them. The funny thing is, once it was determined that they were North, South, East and/or West of Iraq, we decided we needed to say there and help them establish a Democratic government. What is this war about????

What is this war about????


Here yah go!


http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

It's nice to be able to lend a helping hand.

This war is bringing so much peace to the Middle East.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/04/07/iraq.main/index.html

Here yah go!


http://hnn.us/articles/1282.html

It's nice to be able to lend a helping hand.
"Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; "

This is a true statement.

"Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; "

This is BS. FIND OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!

Just knowing that Larry, Vrai, 2A, SHARAB, and tomchamp/JollyRoger/gay-prison-sex-bang-boy are Republicans are enough to make me a Democrat for life.


Definition - Larry, Vrai, 2A, SAHRAB will research and form opinions based fact. (but even so we do have disagreements, Larry & Vrai's on his stance towards imigration is an example)

Kerad would much rather be spoonfed his information based on Deranged lunatics (DU), Misinformed A$$hats (KOS), purposely misleading film makers (Michael Moore(on), Hypocritical Politicians (Reid, Pelosi, Klintons, Gore, Dean etc. what were their stance 7 years ago on Iraq, Oil, Illegal Immigration?) and a media that is willing to make up a story (Forged National Gaurd memos, the NBC Nascar Bull$hit) in order to further their bs agenda

The facts I will present will not change in the meantime.


Facts????? what do you need those for? I thought you were happy to be a spoonfed LibTARD?

It's Tommorrow, where is Kerad and his "Facts"?

My guess would be waiting to find out the talking points from DU, KOS and Media Matters.

if nothing else i'm sure he'll come back with : "Bush Lied" "Haliburton" "War for Oil" "CHENEY!!"

" "Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; "

This is BS. FIND OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!

This is not bs. Saddam had them and he retained the capability to restart his programs quickly and on large scale. This is simply fact and the reason why it was such a big deal that unfettered inspections needed to continue. As that was made impossible by Saddam, not us, the next step, after 12 years of this, was invasion. It had to come to an end under our terms, not his.

Invading Iraq did the prudent thing; it verified the status of his WMD programs and stockpiles.

The thing I'd like to be thought about is this; we went in, found things to not be as bad as they might have been but we had NO way of knowing for sure unless we invaded. Saddam MADE this our only viable choice.

How would you feel if a fireman saw smoke coming from your house and enough things convinced him that there may be a serious problem; no one seems to be home, doesn't look like a BBQ, not the dryer vent, can't tell. So, he kicks in your door and finds the coffee maker on and the pot dry.

It's smoking a bit and very likely would have caused a bigger fire sooner or later, likely destroying your home and others in the process.

So now, your door is kicked down, muddy boot prints all over and perhaps some minor flooding; a mess for sure, but not a catastrophic event.

Now, do you sue him? Scream at him? Get someone to beat him up?

Or do you say "Thank goodness" and shake his hand?

I agree on Osama. I wish you and others would see how simple Iraq is and accept that it was the proper thing to do so we can all move on. There's plenty other things that are much more legitimate in terms of arguing how to go about fixing them. It is madness to argue the converse; that the world was a better place with him in charge and not knowing what he was up to. We didn't depose Mother Theresa.

Please think about this in it's true light and not as some political game of gotcha.

This is BS. FIND OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!
I had to break it out AGAIN for our poor lil libs who seem to forget things so easily.... :duh:

Still think Bush lied?

Game. Set. Match. Checkmate, too. :jet:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

This is BS. FIND OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!
You act like this is "Where's Waldo", it's not quire that easy. How long did it take to find the Unibomber? How many Nazi's evaded capture and trial? Where's the killer of Natalie Holloway? If someone, especially someone with money and an organization, doesn't want to be found, it's going to take a looong time, if ever to find him. Get off that bandwagon, it's getting old and people are abandoning it.

good ones

My Turn :lmao:

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.
Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."
Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html
http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

good ones

My Turn :lmao:

Part II

"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.
Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."
Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html
http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

good ones

My Turn :lmao:

Part III


"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.

What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."
President Clinton
Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff
February 17, 1998 http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

CNN: How did Hussein intend to use the weapon, once it was completed?

HAMZA: Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical. According to German intelligence estimates, we expect him to have three nuclear weapons by 2005. So, the window will close by 2005, and we expect him then to be a lot more aggressive with his neighbors and encouraging terrorism, and using biological weapons. Now he's using them through surrogates like al Qaeda, but we expect he'll use them more aggressively then.
Dr. Khidhir Hamza, former Iraqi Nuclear Scientist for 20 years
Interviewed on CNN
October 22, 2001
http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/22/hamza.cnna/

The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/1998/980929-in2.htm

"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.

But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.

As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.

September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.

There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!

The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."
Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)
Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Addressing the US Senate
October 10, 2002
http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

"We must exercise responsibility not just at home, but around the world. On the eve of a new century, we have the power and the duty to build a new era of peace and security.

We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals, and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information... And they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands.

Together, we must confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton
State of the Union address
January 27, 1998

http://clinton5.nara.gov/textonly/WH/SOTU98/address.html
http://www.usemb.ee/union98.php3

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
President Clinton
National Address from the Oval Office
December 16, 1998

http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/New/html/19981216-3611.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

It's Tommorrow, where is Kerad and his "Facts"?

My guess would be waiting to find out the talking points from DU, KOS and Media Matters.

if nothing else i'm sure he'll come back with : "Bush Lied" "Haliburton" "War for Oil" "CHENEY!!"

I'm at work. A very busy day so far. Did you have trouble sleeping last night...all this anticipation over what I will post next? Kind of like Christmas morning?

I'm going to post over in the actual thread about the leaks. Not right this second...but when I have a few more moments of down time. Be patient.

You keep bringing up DU, KOS, all these sites which I have never been to, nor have ever referenced as sources. I imagine you DO visit them, though...you sure like to talk about them. Also, I'm certain you NEVER visit the right wing whacko sites for YOUR talking points...do you?

Of course not.

I'm going to post over in the actual thread about the leaks. Not right this second...but when I have a few more moments of down time. Be patient.
Well, I am just on pins and needles. So hurry it up. You only think your work is more important than my anticipation - it's not really. :mad:

We are predictable. Imagine that!! :jet: If you wanna do something productive, tell us why the DU boots any pub that goes in & presents facts?? :confused:
Freedom of speech only applies to democrats and gays, and ANYONE that agrees with them..

Remember, Saddam was hiding WsMD so we had to invade Iraq to find them. The funny thing is, once it was determined that they were North, South, East and/or West of Iraq, we decided we needed to say there and help them establish a Democratic government. What is this war about????
Another little item that seems to be forgotten about our endeavor in Iraq is the matter of the cease fire/withdrawal that Saddam agreed to in 1991. That's right the "beloved" United Nations has all the ink they can use to write up these agreements BUT lack the cojones to actually enforce its own rules. OBTW there were 17 violations of the cease fire, I think that is sufficient enough reason.

Another little item that seems to be forgotten about our endeavor in Iraq is the matter of the cease fire/withdrawal that Saddam agreed to in 1991. That's right the "beloved" United Nations has all the ink they can use to write up these agreements BUT lack the cojones to actually enforce its own rules. OBTW there were 17 violations of the cease fire, I think that is sufficient enough reason.
Nope, gotta be 18, we jumped the gun. :lol:

Nope, gotta be 18, we jumped the gun. :lol:
:doh: