It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anne Coulter calls for nuking of N. Korea

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Anne Coulter advocating violence against other nationalities just shows she is a very insecure, poorly potty trained, child.




posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Ok, Thomes thanks for the coment on me, but after the bashing


I am going to go back to you, (darn I missed your spicy remarks)


Thomas, can you explain to all us bush "bashers" "haters" and "unamerican" people what in the heck are we doing in Iraq? Now.

Do you think we are still liberating Iraq?



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser
They should worry, Bush just nuked a country for no reason, why wouldn't he nuke him?


Because they have a detterent force. And NK wouldn't be nuked for no reason. Its a rouge state that sells destructive weapons to terrorist and terror supporting states abroad. Entirely different from Russia and China.

The trick is do the Russians and Chinese see it as that, or will they see it as sensless wanton insanity?

Also, why would the Russians and Chinese attack the US and engage in global nuclear war over Korea? They have to know that they will be attacked in a full nuclear strike if they attack the US, whereas the chances of them being attacked after NK without any action on their part is pretty low.


dubiousone
Worldwatcher, I love your avatar. If that is a photo of you,

I think that they're mostly bollywood babes.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MERC



Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Uh, no, Afghanistan wasn't "revenge", but the rooting out of the Taliban


Yeah and a fat great of good that did. The Taleban had outlawed poppy farming in Afghanistan and had succesfully eliminated 70% of the worlds heroin flow.

But you do uinderstand that they accompluished this by threatening mass death for people involved in poppy plantations right? Its not like its legal over there now that the US came in, they just don't seem to be up to dumping agent orange on the fields and publically executing the women and children harvesting it.


My country is now full of heroin addicts again

They were certainly getting the more expensive south american opium when the afghani opium was on hold.


the opiate trade monopoly belongs to the company forerly called the East India Company. It has long since changed names, and a few times, but it still owns the monopoly. It is a British company, not a U.S. company.

Is there anything to support this? I know that the Brits made opium sale a function of the state, but the john company still secretly runs it?


MERC
Im sure we can find more constructive things to concentrate our efforts on rather than erradicating ourselves uneccesarily.

Tell that to bin Ladin et al.


TC
I'm from a time when books were the in thing

bo-ok? What is this 'bo-ok' of which you speak?

can i figure it out with google
www.google.com...


skadi
Why do people ask for links to information they should know if they have actually read books or paid attention in school?

I doubt anyone was schooled on current control of global opium trade by the John company.


MERC
I am from Milton Keynes, England

Isn't that next to Leighton Buzzard?



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Time for Anne to get pied in the face again. You'd think she'd learn.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Because they have a detterent force. And NK wouldn't be nuked for no reason. Its a rouge state that sells destructive weapons to terrorist and terror supporting states abroad. Entirely different from Russia and China.


How does selling weapons to terrorists and other rogue states make North Korea entirely different from China, Russia, and of course the USA? Sounds like we're all competing in the same business to me.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Kriz, that sentence sounds well thought out; I suppose. Maybe there's a connection between being able to detect a threat on the horizon (or even closer) and potty training. I know of nobody who has researched that.

Marg, had you read one word I have typed and posted on this board, you would know that I have never bought into that "liberation" crap. That was merely for liberals who can't fathom the need for protecting their own country, not for anyone else. Personally, I don't believe in handling libs with kid gloves. Either you realize reality or you are ignored or institutionalized.

What are we doing in Iraq now, you ask?
Well, let's start out by noting what we aren't doing in Iraq. Contrary to the hysterical screams of unstable liberals, we are not stealing oil. The Halliburton corporate flag is not the flag of Iraq, either.
What is no longer happening? Certain members of U.N., the members who adamantly opposed the war in Iraq, are no longer making big bucks with no whammies at the expense of a tortured and hungry populace.

What did we do? We got rid of an insane murderer and his bloodthirsty sons who not only terrorized his own people but threw in with those who'd terrorize the West.

What are we doing now? We are attempting to assist the Iraqi people set up a government that they control in a democratic manner, a means by which they can not only survive but excel. They seem to be of tougher hide than I thought as they are standing firm against the "insurgency" attempt to thwart their self-governorship by resolutely standing for elections and sending their sons to be soldiers and policeman to fight against the murderers who are against their democratic nation.

Who are you for?

I missed you, too, and am glad I once again have time for ATS.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
dg, that is the difference between your ilk and mine; you'd throw a pie at Ann for speaking, I would not throw one at you.

The difference between me and Ann; I wouldn't run, but would stand there with fork in hand!



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:47 AM
link   


Thomas Crowne said: the Taliban was accessories to bad plane flying on 9-11-2001.


TC, I am surprised to read that in your post. It sounds like irresponsible blather. I'm surprised because, for the most part, I find your comments to be quite sound and witty at times.

How about answering Merc's question. Or have you answered it already by essentially saying there was no basis for it. I didn't think so. I have never heard that said and I do read, listen, and watch a great deal.

[edit on 1/10/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Was I too vague for you? Why do you not find my Taliban comment up to snuff? Do I need to cut back on the coffee intake?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:35 AM
link   


Do I need to cut back on the coffee intake?


I wouldn't ask you to give up that pleasure. I am wondering where you got that idea as it seems that the Taliban were never connected to 9/11. Their status as Muslim, even radical fundamental Muslim, does not show a connection to 9/11. I am among those who are not convinced that is was done by Muslims.

[edit on 1/10/2005 by dubiousone]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by dubiousone
Their status as Muslim, even radical fundamental Muslim, does not show a connection to 9/11. I am among those who are not convinced that is was done by Muslims.


Hmmm, most of the hijackers were from Saudi, the official religion of the kingdom is Whabbi Islam. It is reasonable to assume that all of these individuals were from the radical islam branch. I firmly believe and have debated with numerous people here on ATS that the radical elements of Islam do not represent the main stream. However, Whabbisim represents a celar and present danger to everyone and I have no doubt about thier connection to 911



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 03:43 AM
link   
What wisdom and insight this "woman" has.


Some one will have to explain to her that the US only attacks defenceless countries. Nkorea has nukes and might use them if attacked.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Al Queda was using Afghanistan as an their operating area. Where did I hear this? I dunno, I was sober in 2001 and heard a lot of news.

Was what I was hearing the truth? Beatsa the crap outta me. You don't feel the Muslims had anything to do with the attacks? Why do you feel they had nothing to do with the attacks? They've had everything to do with attacks on us since...since TWA became known as "Traveling With Arabs."
Remember what decade that was?

Merc.
A random thought passed through my pea brain tonight while watching a Civil War documentary, and it got me to thinking a bit harder. For example, the OKC bombing, remember it? Remember how nothing added up when you looked at the evidence and heard the official reports?

Remember Project Megiddo, Rex 84 and all that stuff? Remember the K model blackhawk that was damaged during a mock attack on a small Texas town in the middle of the night by the 160th "Night Stalkers"?

Maybe its time I pulled out the old tin foil hat again and started hitting the books once again.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Marg, had you read one word I have typed and posted on this board, you would know that I have never bought into that "liberation" crap.


Well Thomas I guess I was more interesting on the bashing





That was merely for liberals who can't fathom the need for protecting their own country, not for anyone else.


Liberals? Thomas, liberals can't not fathom the need for protecting, well you should go back and check what is going on in Iraq and see how well and protected Iraq is right now, hey take a vacation over there and take a nice walk in the streets of Baghdad, actually by your post it seems that the only one that can see reality is us pesky liberals.


Libs, should be handle with forces Thomas? quite the dictator are you, you will do well in Bush NWO.





What are we doing in Iraq now, you ask?
Well, let's start out by noting what we aren't doing in Iraq.


I think in that short statement you said it all.





Contrary to the hysterical screams of unstable liberals, we are not stealing oil.


You are darn right, guess why because everytime they manage to have some oil pump out it gets blown up.




The Halliburton corporate flag is not the flag of Iraq, either.



Really? what do you think? beheading comes to mind, guess what they are not that stupid I mean Haliburton.



What is no longer happening? Certain members of U.N., the members who adamantly opposed the war in Iraq, are no longer making big bucks with no whammies at the expense of a tortured and hungry populace.


Ahem, you forgot some US companies involved on this too, I forgot they are "protected"




What did we do?



Yeah, Thomas what did we do, let see "got rid of an insane murderer" but they are still been killed every day, Iraqis, women and children, humm so much for Saddam, we replace a insane murderer for a liberation one, and they should shut up after all the are "Free" now so they are dying in freedom. Right?



What are we doing now? We are attempting to assist the Iraqi people set up a government that they control in a democratic manner, a means by which they can not only survive but excel.


Are you sure? that is what they Iraqi people wants? a force liberation with a US made government? Thomas, please open your eyes even the Iraqis knows what is going on in their country.

Survived your said with what, with a country full of "insurgents" from other countries because US poor tactics allowed them to come across the borders?

I wonder if the plan of the bush administration was this all alone.




They seem to be of tougher hide than I thought as they are standing firm against the "insurgency" attempt to thwart their self-governorship by resolutely standing for elections and sending their sons to be soldiers and policeman to fight against the murderers who are against their democratic nation.



Tougher hide Thomas? I have to laugh at that one, Thomas is a mess in that country and thanks to Mr. Bush poor managing.



Who are you for?


What I am for ? I tell you what I am for, I am for this president to admit his mistake and take it like a man, and then take our troops out of that mess called Iraq and let the Iraqi people take care of their own.

They can do it, they have been around even before US was a just but a dream on the explores mind.

By the way thanks for missing me.


[edit on 10-1-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Well I had dinner with Ann last night and she just cried in her soup over all this misunderstanding. Then we had wide crazy monkey sex while she ask GW to punch the Nuke North korea button. She and NK both "melted" at the same time.......What a woman!!!!!!!

Then I woke up...it was all just a DREAM (sigh).



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
How does selling weapons to terrorists and other rogue states make North Korea entirely different from China, Russia, and of course the USA? Sounds like we're all competing in the same business to me.

When have russia the chinese or the US sold nukes and ICBMs and the like to rogue states? R/C/U sell weapons abroad, agreed, but NK is a special sort of international arms seller, or that Iran, which supplies the palestinians and probably other terror groups won't sell nukes to them also.

dubious one
as it seems that the Taliban were never connected to 9/11.

They sheltered bin ladin and allowed his terror network to train in open camps in their country, even after those camps were bombed by clinton. They also refused to give him up after 911 and the leader of their great oponent, the Northern Alliance, just 'happened' to be assasinated immeadiately preceding 911. THey knew about it, they helped to, at a minimum, provide bin ladin with a place to plan it too.

fredt
the official religion of the kingdom is Whabbi Islam

Technically, at least as I understand it, it sunni islam. non whabbists are allowed to practice for example, but shia are not. Tho i think you have been there no? Or was that somene else associated with ATSNN?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by DrHoracid
Then we had wide crazy monkey sex while she ask GW to punch the Nuke North korea button. She and NK both "melted" at the same time.......What a woman!!!!!!!

Then I woke up...it was all just a DREAM (sigh).


Dr. Horacid, still having dreams with the lady, I have to warn you thinking with the wrong head is going to get you into more troubles.


You most be quite the man.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I don't know whether the Taliban were involved or not. I said I am not convinced, just as a very large and growing number of Americans are not convinced.

Is guilt by association sufficient reason to invade a country? "If you're not with us, you're against us?" GW. Asking questions and wanting answers seems to be equated with "you're against" God and country. I don't believe in accepting government pronouncements on blind faith. Our government has been shown to be less than honest far too often.

There remain many unanswered fundamental questions about 9/11 which have been and are being addressed in great depth in other threads. I take serious issue with the failure of the people (our own government) who had control of the physical evidence of the 9/11 events to preserve that evidence and subject it to scientific testing.

We do a more thorough investigation of an ordinary car crash. But our govenment made a hasty pronouncement of who did it. End of story. Why investigate if you "know" the answer. After all, Uncle Sam would not mislead us.

Smells fishy to me. In light of the failure to answer perfectly reasonable questions, to properly investigate, and to preserve the evidence, the alternate theories remain plausible in my view.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   
NMarg, it seems pretty obvious that you don't read but skim, so I'll not go into detail in a response.
I'll just point out that over 75% of their population intend on voting - they are more interested than this nation's population. More copsmen have been killed by the terrorists than have American soldiers, yet Iraqis still line up to volunteer to be cops.
Who is killing the innocent Iraqi men, women and children, Marg? Is it us? Are they our allies, or are they with Hussein? Yes, people are still dying, but again, those are the people who should be the object of your venom, not our administration.
As far as which the Iraqi people like better, our assistance or the old regime, maybe you in your mind think they might prefer a despot who showed his affection for you by allowing you to be put in the plastic shredder head first instead of feet first, but I'm sure that question could only arise in the mind of a liberal.

As far as mismanaging, no doubt. But you could do better? Kerry? Kofi? Who? Oh, it wasn't managed perfectly, do it shouldn't have even happened? Mindless critique bores me.

Lastly, you want Bush to stand up and admiot he was wrong. Me, too. He needs to admit he allowed the NBC weapons to escape the country because he took so long to get the job done. Now the weapons and production capabilities have slipped into Syria. Well, at least Syria is a bit more stable.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join