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.

 

Saddam's jail diary reveals AIDS fear from americans

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2008 @ 08:46 PM
link   




I have tried to read your posts...most of them smack of right-wing over the top nonsense, hence the Glen Beck comment, you both irritate me on the same level. It is ok if you ignore me, As you can see, I don't post very often, so it really isn't hurting my feelings, and in fact is pretty much a waste of energy. And the Foe thing was so I would know which threads to avoid if I just wasn't in the mood for retreaded and rehashed information that I could find at any number of websites that majority of the unwashed masses get all their information.




posted on May, 8 2008 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Rook1545
 



Mod Edit - removed uncesseary remark

[edit on 9-5-2008 by elevatedone]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
No you didn't. You just made some inane statement to the effect that "but the fact remains, when he was in power, it wasn't every man woman and child in the country who feared imminent death from any number of directions."

And your point is...


Originally posted by jsobecky
That shows that you have no clue as to the real reasons we invaded Iraq.

In an effort to avoid getting your cookie cutter "look through my 9200 posts where I educated the masses" response, I won't ask you to elaborate, oh wise one.


Originally posted by jsobecky
As for current conditions in Iraq, maybe you should stop squealing "we we we we" and look at who is sabotaging the oil lines, killing innocents with IEDs and otherwise destroying Iraq from within. Then maybe you'd realize that things are slowly improving over there. You won't hear that from left-wing blogs and media, though.


Ok, I'll try and stick to the honest, forthcoming folks at Fox News then...

Maybe you ought to spend a little time thinking about why those things are happening. Then, getting back to the original topic, ask yourself if these activities were as prevalent when Saddam was running the show...

Oh, and I provide a home for soldiers between tours in Iraq, and can't really think of a better source of information in terms of how things are going over there, so don't try and sell this war to me my friend.

Have a nice day.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
Saddam Hussein obviously was not very well educated regarding HIV/AIDS. To my knowledge it can only be acquired by an exchange of bodily fluids such as blood, semen, saliva, and urine. The amounts required to contract the disease from the last two items are almost to ridiculous to mention.

Being an older man though, and from a culture that probably has a lot of taboos about communal washing and such, I guess it's understandable. I knew an Italian man once who refused to wear used shoes or socks simply because he feared getting germs from them..



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Left-wing, right-wing..what are we? A duck?

Hey so guys, ha ha, funny news story and poor fellow for not knowing about infectious diseases, etc... Did anyone notice the last three sentences of the article? (How do I quote outside sources?)

"In his writings, Saddam also warned of the threat posed by neighbouring Shiite Iran to Iraq and the Arab world, saying it was more dangerous than Israel.

"The spread of the Persians... is more dangerous for Iraq than the Zionist entity, now and in the future," he said. "The Persians are similarly dangerous to the Arab nation, especially the Arab countries of the Gulf."



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Where exactly are these WMD's that America fought so hard to keep the world safe from?

Where exactly is the link to Al-Qaeda, hard evidence showing Bin Laden & Hussein were in cahoots?

None of the justifications for the Iraq War stand up to serious scrutiny.
Hell I don't understand why you don't "buy" our opinions, you bought the rantings of a misinformed, 61 year old Texan, and stack of forged documents.

The simple fact you have to understand here, is it was a clever diversion. There were no WMD's, Saddam didn't know who Osama was, and there was no threat.
They played you and the American public like a flute, to distract you from the real objective of the Iraq War: Energy Interests

The Republicans are neck-deep in the Oil Industry. There either connected to it or have friends connected to it (the Saudis namely), and these influential individuals make trillions a year from record high Oil Profits, and they can't have such an anti-Western, anti-business individual sitting atop the world's second largest reserve of Oil.
So what do they do? Regime change...

It's nothing new really. Go back to 1953. Iran's President Mossadegh tries to privatize his Oil Industry for the benefit of his nation. Washington panics. No more revenue! What happens?
Mossadegh is overthrown by the CIA and replaced with the Shah (puppet), who proceeds to lick US ass for the next 28 years or so until he's overthrown by his own people.

Your justifications about Saddam being a "bad guy", the wood chippers, the rape rooms, the human rights abuses not only form a very weak casus belli for war but have also been partly debunked.
The so called "People Shredders" have yet to be found: www.spectator.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...

Nations don't like other nations, that's a given. That is not a right to go and pound each other back into the Stone Age. Just because somebody lives differently than you, doesn't mean they are evil and need to be forced into living from your perspectives.

Who is the US to force democracy onto the Iraqi people with a sword? Who says they want it?
I don't recall the Iraqis being asked if they want to live under a US occupation force for the next 10 years.
If Democracy is a government for the people by the people, than the people alone choose if they want it, not some half-retarded Texan and his administration 10,000 miles away. No.
That makes the US no different from the same dictator who forced military rule onto his own people.

People in the Middle East have been living by the ways of the Quran for 1,500 years, I hardly think any amount of US pressure or invasion will change the habits of 1,000 generations. It's ingrained, it's in their blood.
If you think you can bomb their ideals and lifestyles out of them, you need to get off the computer and travel more my friend because some things never change.

The old, "but he was a bad guy" excuse is what the Republicans fall upon when their other justifications have been proven outright lies.
A man who lies to his people and his own government is a bad guy.
Who tortures secretly around the world is a bad guy.
Who tries to rewrite the constitution and trample over civil liberties is a bad guy.

Does that mean America deserves to be invaded? No.
The people choose him, now live with him.

Remember who gave Saddam his chemical weapons and a vast array of military hardware before you go and criticize him for using them.

If I give a known felon and murder a machine gun for "deer-hunting" and he goes off and kills scores of innocent people, what am I?
I'm aiding and abetting a known criminal.
Except here, it came back to bite the US in the ass.
Just because you provided them to him without knowing what he was going to use them for does not clear you of guilt.

Halabja would have never happened if America didn't give him a bunch of "multi-purpose" components and precursors. In the minds of the Kurds, you would be just as guilty as he is.

Open your eyes and see how you were duped. It was nothing more than a carefully executed robbery, except the Iraqi people are paying the price dearly in exchange for record Oil prices.
Say what you want about Saddam, I'm not denying he was a cruel and evil man, but at least the Iraqis had water and electricity and something to eat under his rule and weren't having to worry about their apartment block being blown up.

America was not good for Iraq. You turned Iraq's clock back about 50 years from a nation that was already recovering from 2 successive conflicts and what have you achieved?
You ousted one reprehensible dictator and replaced him with another reprehensible puppet regime, an occupying army and a barrel of insurgents who now thanks to your occupation have a justification to vent their extremist views.

Well congratulations, if this America's idea of "Mission Accomplished" and complete success, then what the fk does a failure look like?

[edit on 8/5/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Ever the myopic...

Perhaps Saddam should have wrung his hands over contracting a rope burn and a subluxation of his cervical vertebrae instead.

I attribute this to a classic example of displacement... Saddam substituted the improbable affliction for the inevitable one.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   
"What's your point? If Smith&Wesson sells you a handgun that you use to murder your family, who is at fault, you or S&W?"

I'm sorry but do you know where the chemical weapons range is? My buddies and I would like to go there. You know, shoot the breeze and practice using chemical weapons. It's a sport where I live, don't tell me in your part of the world you only use chemical weapons to hurt people, that's crazy talk. It's become a huge sport, I hear they might make a tournament out of it. Open your eyes, just a little please.

I'm sorry, I feel I need to be more clear for the less, informative crowd. You simply can not compare a handgun to chemical weapons. Sad that I need to say it but I fear the education system might steer some away from my sarcasm.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by dark_matter06]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Through mans fears is where aids arrives. The shutting down of the spirit in body is good cause to shut down the immune system.

What makes up the immune system is light the anecdote to any viral infection of the mind. The lack of light is what brings it in.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Thanks for stopping it here with really eye opening comments like this

It's nothing new really. Go back to 1953. Iran's President Mossadegh tries to privatize his Oil Industry for the benefit of his nation. Washington panics. No more revenue! What happens?



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   
The point here, that several seem to be missing, is we did not invade Iraq on the premise that Saddam used chemical weapons. The premise was that he had them, period. On top of that, the only evidence that he even had them was that the US had provided them to him during the Iran/Iraq war. There was not, at any time, evidence that he was in possession of WMD's at the time of the invasion. Hence the notion that the war was sold to the people on lies and false premises. The net of the issue is that the world would be a better place for everyone had the US simply minded it's own business rather than insist on "spreading democracy" to people who want no part of it.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 




Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Where exactly are these WMD's that America fought so hard to keep the world safe from?

Saddam used some of them on his own people, the UN inspectors destroyed some of them, the rest are probably in Syria.



Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

Where exactly is the link to Al-Qaeda, hard evidence showing Bin Laden & Hussein were in cahoots?

Beats me. Who said that there was one? Not me.




Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
None of the justifications for the Iraq War stand up to serious scrutiny.

That's because they are not discussed here. Well, they are, but most here don't listen to them because they don't fit in with the mainstream mantra of "Bush lied".



Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Hell I don't understand why you don't "buy" our opinions, you bought the rantings of a misinformed, 61 year old Texan, and stack of forged documents.


Because I don't play "Follow the clique". Many people here are afraid to sound even a little bit conservative because they are afraid that their buddies will not star their posts. It's a lot easier to listen to mainstream chants and mantras - that way, you don't have to think for yourself. All you're required to do is to memorize the following: : "Bush lied! People died!"




Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
The simple fact you have to understand here, is it was a clever diversion. There were no WMD's, Saddam didn't know who Osama was, and there was no threat.
They played you and the American public like a flute, to distract you from the real objective of the Iraq War: Energy Interests

The Republicans are neck-deep in the Oil Industry. There either connected to it or have friends connected to it (the Saudis namely), and these influential individuals make trillions a year from record high Oil Profits, and they can't have such an anti-Western, anti-business individual sitting atop the world's second largest reserve of Oil.
So what do they do? Regime change...

I almost applauded you for independent thinking. Almost. You are partially right. You blew it with the "Republicans = bad" mantra. That's groupthink.

That area of the world supplies 2/3 of the world's petro requirements. Things were deteriorating to the point that, if left unchecked, would have caused major instability in the world's markets. If you think $3.55/gallon is bad, and it is, the price would double if something wasn't done.

It's not finished, yet. But Saddam is gone, Iraq is stabilizing, and Iran has been put on major notice.





Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
It's nothing new really. Go back to 1953. Iran's President Mossadegh tries to privatize his Oil Industry for the benefit of his nation. Washington panics. No more revenue! What happens?

Incorrect. How much oil do we get from Iran today? Hint: less than we get from Iraq. Iow, zero, nada, nil.

Besides, if oilco revenues decline, what is the easiest solution? To raise prices.



Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

Your justifications about Saddam being a "bad guy", the wood chippers, the rape rooms, the human rights abuses not only form a very weak casus belli for war but have also been partly debunked.

I never used them as justification for the invasion. I was (successfully) shooting down a defense of Saddam.



Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
The so called "People Shredders" have yet to be found: www.spectator.co.uk...
www.guardian.co.uk...

They took them back to Rent-A-Center when they were done.:shk: Jesus!





Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Nations don't like other nations, that's a given. That is not a right to go and pound each other back into the Stone Age. Just because somebody lives differently than you, doesn't mean they are evil and need to be forced into living from your perspectives.

This isn't a matter of not liking kibbe batata. If genocide is being committed, nations have an obligation to stop it.




Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
If I give a known felon and murder a machine gun for "deer-hunting" and he goes off and kills scores of innocent people, what am I?

You're a criminal if he goes home and throws the gun in a bonfire. Felons don't get machine guns. That makes the rest of your argument
.


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Halabja would have never happened if America didn't give him a bunch of "multi-purpose" components and precursors. In the minds of the Kurds, you would be just as guilty as he is.

You know that for a fact, right? Saddam wouldn't have found another method to commit his atrocities, right?

Riiight....


Also, the fact that you pejoratively refer to Republicans shows you have a lot to learn about politics and life. This is not a "Republican" issue.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by jsobecky]



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by dark_matter06
 



Originally posted by dark_matter06
I'm sorry, I feel I need to be more clear for the less, informative crowd. You simply can not compare a handgun to chemical weapons. Sad that I need to say it but I fear the education system might steer some away from my sarcasm.

[edit on 8-5-2008 by dark_matter06]


You don't need to be more clear. You just need to work on your reading comprehension. Then you might see the point that was being made.


All that sarcasm, wasted. What a pity.:shk:

I have yet to read a post that disagrees with me and doesn't have some element of malice in it. Sad, but the truth hurts.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


You are telling someone that has been In Iraq that things are better now that we have invaded it? when in fact you have never been in IRAQ yourself? Just because your a CNN, FOX armchair warrior does not give you the right to talk as if you know that IRAQ is somehow a better country now.. Do you realize that over 1 MILLION innocent IRAQIS have perished due to our invasion and our policing? And FYI IRAQ had nothing to do with 911 so don't even bring up that card, people like you disgust me.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I suggest you sign up right now ( I know a great recruiter) and put your money where your mouth is, since you think that Iraq is a better country now.. You should have no problem going there, Now once you come back then you can tell us how great of a Country IRAQ is.. Until then I will take a vets word that has experienced IRAQ, Risked his life, Seen his comrades perished and get injured over an Armchair warrior. Let me know when you want the recruiters phone number.



posted on May, 8 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm sure any remaining residents of Halabja would disagree with you.


They would in fact blame the Iranians since they might have the presence of mind to go look at declassified CIA documents showing that said agency knew it was a Iranian attack all along. Since Iraq didn't have that type of chemical weapon there is no real way they could have used it.


I would modify that sentence like this:
Thing's in Iraq are worse different and better now than they ever were infact they will never be the same again. And that's a good thing.


Things in Iraq are even worse than they were during the US/UN imposed genocide ( called sanctions) so it's really really bad. Fact is Iraq is , and in many ways still is, the most westernized country in the area and that probably best explains why the US had to crush it for fear of such ideas spreading.


Those words says more about you as an individual and your country than anything else. It's probably a good thing you left the forces.


So have you served yourself ( it's not like their not getting paid; and you don't see people lining up to join) in this capacity or wasn't the pay good enough? Why can't the US army find new recruits if 'serving your country' was something that most Americans wanted to do? There is 8% unemployment and yet they don't 'serve'? Don't you think it's a old fashioned ( and completely idiotic) notion that one best 'serves' your country by going overseas to kill people that never attacked you or even threatened to do so?


Originally posted by jsobecky
Having and using WMDs are two different things. Or are you denying that he used them on the Kurds?


Yes and last i checked only one country has actually used weapons of mass destruction? Don't you think everyone got the message that the US had them and were willing to use them? Saddam killed Kurds with relative abandon but so does everyone in the part of the world. The US also sponsored and supplied Iraq when SH was busy with most of that killing so where do you get off suddenly trying to use this as some kind of justification for killing even more people?


How about the woodchippers? The rape rooms? Pushing blindfolded people of of rooftops? Etc. etc.


I didn't see anyone in the US state department/foreign office/house/senate complaining about that when Iraq was the US A's 'best friend' in the 80's? Why so suddenly so interested in things we don't have much evidence for to start with? I suppose the same people pointing the fingers knows quite well about those rooms and devices as they probably bought them, and sent them to SH, from their more experienced 'allies' in the war against human decency.


Then try to sell your line "the fact remains, when he was in power, it wasn't every man woman and child in the country who feared imminent death from any number of directions."


Not everyone feared him as it was pretty obvious to one and all what you could do and could not do. Just like every dictator that has ever lived there is STILL a contract of sort and people are very much aware of what they should not do to get into trouble and what to do to gain favor. Just like very decent, or very stupid, people in all dictatorships end up in prison or dead so the people of Iraq lived in relative prosperity even during the long war with Iran. At least half the population of Iraq ( the women) must have respected SH in one way or another given how it's almost the only place in the region where women have access to state posts, university positions as well as the same education as men. Sure you can't change a culture over night but in many ways SH was positively benevolent as compared to neighbouring regimes.


Sell it somewhere else. I ain't buying it - neither are other thinking individuals.


Thinking? You can think all you like but since you don't seem to have any accurate information it's not going to get you anywhere near the objective truth.

Stellar



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Alright let's fan the flames of patriotism here a bit...


Saddam used some of them on his own people, the UN inspectors destroyed some of them, the rest are probably in Syria.


How could the Inspectors destroy them if they admit they found almost no evidence of WMD's and they were forced to leave early?
www.cbsnews.com...

Kind of hard to destroy something you can't find?
Even the Heads of the Inspection Team admit there was little compelling evidence to invade Iraq on in 2003. www.cnn.com...

I think it's safe to say the judgment of the Inspection Team supersedes your clouded and misguided comments.

As for Syria, one word: DEBUNKED
www.washingtonpost.com...

You want to spout Republican agenda? Fine, don't however make statements you assume everyone will believe coming from a person who seems to have less credibility than crocodile piss.



Beats me. Who said that there was one? Not me.


Let me refresh your memory then, as you Republicans seem to have put it in the back of your mind what your beloved leader (Fuhrer) said in 2001:

Cheney, 2001:

We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s, that it involved training, for example, on BW and CW, that al-Qaida sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems that are involved. The Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the al-Qaida organization.


Fastfoward to 2006, and everyone's trying to distance themselves from the outright bullsh*t spouted by Cheney:

Bush:

"First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don’t think we ever said — at least I know I didn’t say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."


The 9/11 Commission:

"9/11 Commission concluded that "to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."


CIA:

"We did not have "credible intelligence reporting" of operational collaboration between Iraq and al-Qaeda."


Even Bin Laden spat the dummy:

"..the land of the Arab world, the land is like a mother, and Saddam Hussein is #ing his mother."


Oh yeaah, they were in bed together alright.
Another lemon sold to the American public. And people like you ate it up with a spoon.


That's because they are not discussed here. Well, they are, but most here don't listen to them because they don't fit in with the mainstream mantra of "Bush lied".


See above?
All debunked.

We don't listen because generally ATS users don't react well to bullsh*t, I have an allergy myself, you however; seem to be immune.
A common trait amongst Republicans I've noticed.



Because I don't play "Follow the clique". Many people here are afraid to sound even a little bit conservative because they are afraid that their buddies will not star their posts. It's a lot easier to listen to mainstream chants and mantras - that way, you don't have to think for yourself. All you're required to do is to memorize the following: : "Bush lied! People died!"


Clique what clique?
Oh you mean the people who have actually woken up from the fantasy that is the "War on Terror"?
Well... one day when you take off your blindfold you can join us, until then live happily knowing ignorance is bliss.

Actually it's harder being a Liberal, as Conservatives gulp down Bush propaganda but can't seem to bring themselves to read the facts.

I don't follow my opinions just because other users support me and I get stars, I follow them because they make so much more sense than the Minister of Propaganda himself does.

Hell if anyone has it easy it's Conservatives. All you guys have to do is sit and swallow, no free-thinking required, they'll do all that for you.


That area of the world supplies 2/3 of the world's petro requirements. Things were deteriorating to the point that, if left unchecked, would have caused major instability in the world's markets. If you think $3.55/gallon is bad, and it is, the price would double if something wasn't done.

It's not finished, yet. But Saddam is gone, Iraq is stabilizing, and Iran has been put on major notice.


Whoa, whoa whoa...
Your actually supporting the invasion of Iraq on the basis that Oil prices were simply too high?
Is that a joke?

So because one country is lacking some resources, that means you can invade another country with no other reason but sheer greed?

Well Helloooo Adolf!
The Nazis plundered Europe too, do you also look up to them and believe they did the right thing?
Sheesh, your a lost case buddy.


Incorrect. How much oil do we get from Iran today? Hint: less than we get from Iraq. Iow, zero, nada, nil.

Besides, if oilco revenues decline, what is the easiest solution? To raise prices.


Wow, I just love debating with intellectuals who present compelling evidence.

Mossadegh was overthrown because the British feared loosing control of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. They looked to the Yanks to save them, and promised joint control over oil fields in Iran.
Remember back then you didn't have half a million troops in Saudia Arabia, you had little influence on the Mid-East and feared loosing your only control over OPEC.

What happened? Operation Ajax. Director Dulles approves $1 million dollars to bring about the fall of Mossadegh in any way possible.

Even the Bush Admin has acknowledged overthrowing Mossadegh was a step in the wrong direction.
Madeleine Albright:

"The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America."


Keep up with the times.

[edit on 9/5/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 03:38 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky


This isn't a matter of not liking kibbe batata. If genocide is being committed, nations have an obligation to stop it.


Funny that I don't remember the US going into Rwanda or Bosnia in the 1990's, or Burma in the 70's. You guys didn't lift a finger until the mass graves were covered and the perpetrators long gone.

Let me rephrase what you said:
You mean in another words, America has an obligation to stop genocide, only when they can get something out of it?

This way when you invade Iraq, topple Saddam and say you stopped genocide from happening in won't have all been in vain, because now you'll control the world's second largest reserve of oil, so the Republicans can have oil on tap in the White House.

Too bad Rwanda, Bosnia or Burma didn't have any oil fields, millions could have been saved... ah well, America only plays "Good Cop" when it suits them.


You're a criminal if he goes home and throws the gun in a bonfire. Felons don't get machine guns. That makes the rest of your argument .


Sigh, are you really that thick? You know full well what I meant.
Chemical Weapons ARE ONLY USED FOR ONE PURPOSE.
Just like Machine Guns.

When America, in all it's infinite wisdom gives Saddam vials of chemical agents and the machines to make them active, WHILE he's fighting a war with Iran and cracking down on Kurdish rebellion....
What do you think Saddam is going to do with that hardware?
Bake a cake?
Donate it to Charity?
Try and find a cure for cancer?

To excuse giving a reprehensible and violent dictator chemical weapons is no better than firing the damn chemical shells yourself. You might as well have pulled the trigger for him.

I suppose you would also agree with giving clinically insane people the right to carry concealed firearms too?


You know that for a fact, right? Saddam wouldn't have found another method to commit his atrocities, right?


Wow, the only point of yours with some actual truth in it. Never thought I'd see the day.

Maybe so... but certainly not during the 1980's when Saddam was fighting Iran, he couldn't have afforded it.
What you did is help accelerate his genocidal campaign and give him a quick and easy way to wipe off ten's of thousands of people.

So congrats America, another successful chapter in US Foreign Policy.


This is not a "Republican" issue.


Last time I checked the fascists in power are Republicans, the same people who invaded Iraq & Afghanistan with faulty intelligence, the same folks who deemed torture was acceptable in certain circumstances and also the same people wrote up the PATRIOT Act, tapped into peoples phones, and eroded civil liberties in the name of "security".
This is a Republican issue like it or not, I don't see too many Liberals on Bush's cabinet, do you?

"Those who sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither."



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 



Originally posted by thefreepatriot

You are telling someone that has been In Iraq that things are better now that we have invaded it?

Yes. Yes I am. Having "been" in Iraq doesn't make you an expert.


Originally posted by thefreepatriot
when in fact you have never been in IRAQ yourself?

And you "think" you know that, how? Be careful -



Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Just because your a CNN, FOX armchair warrior does not give you the right to talk as if you know that IRAQ is somehow a better country now..

What gives me the right to say what I want is the First Amendment. The same right that allows you to prattle on like a jaybird.



Originally posted by thefreepatriot
Do you realize that over 1 MILLION innocent IRAQIS have perished due to our invasion and our policing?

Now I know you're a liar and have never been to Iraq. Else you wouldn't be spouting that liberal bullcrap about millions dead in Iraq.


Originally posted by thefreepatriot
And FYI IRAQ had nothing to do with 911 so don't even bring up that card, people like you disgust me.


I never said they did, Alice, now did I? Ignorance and lying disgust me.



posted on May, 9 2008 @ 04:56 AM
link   
reply to post by thefreepatriot
 



Originally posted by thefreepatriot
I suggest you sign up right now ( I know a great recruiter) and put your money where your mouth is, since you think that Iraq is a better country now..

I bet you do know a great recruiter. Are they still making pitches to losers that still live in mommy's basement? It sounds like they are.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join