Originally posted by Dreamstone
Wait, Chemical and Bilogical weapons can't cause mass deaths? Go tell that to the families of those killed by Saddams use of WMDs That statement is a fallacy and I would hope that you, as a former soldier, would know it.

Its highly unlikely Saddam destroyed all of his WMDs. They were the only leverage he had against Iran, a country that would have loved to invade Iraq. He would not have thrown them away so quickly.

i'm sure the dead children and innocents are relieved they were dismembered and mutilated by blessed american munitions instead of evil baathist ones.
what makes you think america is the world's policeman? is it by some divine right? why aren't we helping the oppressed of countries which have no oil?
afghanistan -oil pipeline. iraq -oil reserves. rowanda -.....? ethiopia, -.......?, east timor?, oh right, we're responsible for that one.
this isn't about right and left. it's about truth, justice and the (late, bereaved) american way.

clinton is kang, bush is kodos. there is no difference. you are being lied to. the cabalists are in control.

Originally posted by Dreamstone
Wait, Chemical and Bilogical weapons can't cause mass deaths? Remember, I trained in them. They are highly specific. Highly dangerous to place/employ. They only have so much reach - unless it is something like ebola or AIDS, which are spread through a host. But technically speaking, as I said, they are not WMD. You can look into it for yourself if you do not trust me. I have no reason to mislead you. It just galls me to no end the way in which the Bush administration has twisted terms to suit their goals. To instill fear in the population. That is why, as Wolfowitz explained they termed it that way.


This one really kills me. Sorry, Dreamstone, but I fear you have yet to see the evidence on this. The story about Saddam gassing the kurds was completely twisted around as a pre-Gulf war PR strategy. The actual scenario was Saddam's forces were fighting the Iranians at Halajba. Both Iraq and Iran were using chemical weapons. Saddam was using that which we supplied him with and Iran was using mustard gas. Field studies have proven that it was, in fact, the mustard gas used by the Iranians that actually killed most of the people in that village. It was simply used to make Saddam look like a monster - which he was. But, frankly, the Iranian who was in charge of gassing the Iraqis was just as evil. And so is any American who is guilty of making/using gas. And while I'm on that issue, I have to say, right before 9-11 happened, it came to light the our government was found to be in contravention of the chem/bio warfare treaty we had signed. Yes, we got caught with our pants down still making them and doing the research. Some things never change.

Go tell that to the families of those killed by Saddams use of WMDs That statement is a fallacy and I would hope that you, as a former soldier, would know it.
As a former soldier I know the value of propaganda and how easy it is to brainwash weak-minded people. All it takes is zoning in on their natural hatreds. Piece of cake.


Its highly unlikely Saddam destroyed all of his WMDs. They were the only leverage he had against Iran, a country that would have loved to invade Iraq. He would not have thrown them away so quickly. Before the war I feared he still had some stuff hidden, but in light of what has and has not developed, I believe he concentrated on preparing for guerrilla warfare, which has been profoundly effective. Saddam was/is no dummy. More like a wily, devil-worshipping snake. I truly believe that in the latter days of his reign, Saddam's most potent weapon was THE BLUFF. He had so many people believing he was gonna gas the troops in Baghdad.. He had everybody snowed. And ya know what guys, he's proven he doesn't need weapons of mass destruction, afterall.

Yet again Billybob you miss the point entirely. Ever heard of the Iran-Iraq war? Thought so.

We are the worlds policeman because thatwas the path we have chosen. As the worlds only megapower, we decide to help other countries instead of conquering them. And Iraq is Not conquering, so hush your liberal lips. We do what we do out of persoanl interest, and sometimes that interest is humanitarian. That's what it boils down to.

ps.. If you were ruling over the world's second largest remaining oil reserve, and you had enemies all around you coveting that power, what would you do? He could not develop WMD. The space needed was too large with all eyes on his country. And you have to procure certain unmistakable components/ingredients - like yellow cake (Uranium) from Niger. He BLUFFED everyone concerning the weapons he did not have. It was brilliant if you think about it. He psyched everyone out.
EVERYONE. Hate him all ya want, but you have to admit, there was a reason he was in power as long as he was.
He was wickedly cunning and ruthlessly evil.
I only wish I had gotten him in my sights during Desert Storm.

Originally posted by Dreamstone
Yet again Billybob you miss the point entirely. Ever heard of the Iran-Iraq war? Thought so.

We are the worlds policeman because thatwas the path we have chosen. As the worlds only megapower, we decide to help other countries instead of conquering them. And Iraq is Not conquering, so hush your liberal lips. We do what we do out of persoanl interest, and sometimes that interest is humanitarian. That's what it boils down to.

ever heard of media convergence, multi national globalist corporations and megaspin?
we didn't choose to be the world's policemen. the leaders of the coup chose it.
who owns the truth? where do you get yours?
what you don't seem to understand is the only war going on is a class war and an information war. the rest is just collateral damage and freindly fire.
you blatantly ignore the criminal past of bush, because he supposedly represents 'the right'.
i suggest you stop buying newspapers and turn off CNN. a nice long media fast is what this anti-spin doctor prescribes.

Well well well.

It's been a fun thread to read.

Im not going to bore all of you with my comments, but i basically agree with what EastCoastKid has said.

you blatantly ignore the criminal past of bush, because he supposedly represents 'the right'. BillyBob

Yes, this makes me sick. People refuse to see what is really going on because they like someone. You know, I voted for Bush. After 8 long and sleez-filled years of Klinton, I could not wait for a little class and dignity to be brought back to our tarnished Oval Office - not to mention a strong national defense. So much for the first part. So much for it all. Class does not cover wickedness. And it's funny, I used to be called a right-wing hawk on defense. Since the NEO CON chumps rolled into town, their policies make me seem like a fukken liberal. I'm still a hawk on our nation's defense. NEO CONS are just LUNATICS.

I like bush, and as one with a checkered past, know that I should be the last to judge. I agree with his policies, I agree with his political party, and I like the man himself. Has he screwed up? Yes, and so have I, far worse than he has in all likelihood. Is he part of a Global conspiracy, a coup? I don't know about such things to say. But I will defend him because he is the best man for the job. Wicked? I think not. The only wickedness here exists in the hearts of those small minded individuals who focus on one man and blame him for all of society's ills, ills that began and grew long before he ever took his oath. The events that unfold today have taken decades to pan out, and no one can prepare themselves, or their country, for what unfolds.

I think that if people can make meth labs in a bathtub, they can make WMDs in a trailer. Making biological weapons is difficult, but crude ones can be produced with relative ease. Same with chemical. This is what Saddam did. I agree with you ECK, Saddam was one smooth bitster, smooth enough to make people think he never had WMDs at all.

Originally posted by Dreamstone
I. But I will defend him because he is the best man for the job.

I think that if people can make meth labs in a bathtub, they can make WMDs in a trailer.

hahahaha...the best man for the job..hahahaha....oh and like crack..meth could be considered a weapon of mass destruction whose origins date back to past goverments that widely dispersed them to the general public...and the recent scurge of meth in this country....like crack...could probably be linked in some way to our goverment{cia or somebody that wants to be rid of undisiralbles...which, i do not think is so far fetched}

Meth, like crack is the invention of people who desire more money, pure and simple. Like I said before, the drug evolution has been to complex as to pass it off to a CIA plot.

And yes Bush is the best man for the job, at least until election 2004 when I can vote for Wesley Clark. (We need a real soldier in the WH)

Originally posted by Dreamstone
Meth, like crack is the invention of people who desire more money, pure and simple.

yes your right...but look at the origins of meth...germany and japan had huge meth problems dating back to ww2....you dont think that anybody in our goverment noticed that...i think a stat was something like 35 to 45% percent of japanese where "abusing" a much more potent and pure form meth back then...and meth is still rampent all across asia....seeing how the whole opium trade seemed to be not only about money but also a way to control the lower classes i dont think it is to hard to believe that methis being used the same way today....

Elaborate please, I'm curious on this theory of yours

id gladly go into detail if i thought i was not going to be ridiculed by you...no need for me to waste my time typing if your just going to be closed minded...

Originally posted by Dreamstone
I like bush, and as one with a checkered past, know that I should be the last to judge.

Bush has a likeable enough personality. That's not the problem. He's a puppet, the face of the controllers. I don't care, personally, how much coke he sniffed or how much booze he drank. Unless, of course, he got into trouble and then got out of it with the help of Poppy Bush. High likelyhood.

I agree with his policies, I agree with his political party, and I like the man himself.

You like him. You like the Republicans. That's fine, but you have a built-in bias. I know this because before 2001 I was a lifelong Republican, and far more partisan. Fire-breathing, would be a good way of putting it. Try and be a little more open-minded. It will serve you well in the long-run. The Republicans have bent over for Bush. They've also done what I feared. They've gone mad with power. That is not good for anyone other than the very richest among us. Tell me, are you in the top 10% of wage-earners?


Has he screwed up? Yes, and so have I, far worse than he has in all likelihood.
You are not the president of the United States.


Is he part of a Global conspiracy, a coup? I don't know about such things to say.
He's nothing but a puppet for the controllers. The ONLY reason he's president is because of who his father is. He has an intellect the size of a new pea.

But I will defend him because he is the best man for the job.
Why? He doesn't even read. He has no clue what is really going on. He has admitted this. His handlers handle him. That should scare everybody.


Wicked? I think not.
That's because you like him. I had to come to my senses finally and accept that his father, George H.W. Bush has been involved in much wickedness. He was my Commander-In-Chief during the Gulf war. How hard can it be to make you see the truth if I can acknowledge that truth?

The only wickedness here exists in the hearts of those small minded individuals who focus on one man and blame him for all of society's ills, ills that began and grew long before he ever took his oath.

Klinton is just as wicked as Bush. They both work for the same interests. If you do not believe that, than you have a lot of research to do. If you're willing to see the truth.


The events that unfold today have taken decades to pan out, and no one can prepare themselves, or their country, for what unfolds.

I think that if people can make meth labs in a bathtub, they can make WMDs in a trailer.
And this is because of your extensive experience with these types of weapons?

Making biological weapons is difficult, but crude ones can be produced with relative ease.
And what experience informs your opinion?

Same with chemical. This is what Saddam did. I agree with you ECK, Saddam was one smooth bitster, smooth enough to make people think he never had WMDs at all.
Sorry Buddy. There is NO truth to support your claim. NONE. NADA.