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.

 

Where is the Left's apology to Bush?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venus

Please post your source of this statement.


Are you serious? LINK




posted on May, 18 2004 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by earthtone
A couple of gas shells , reason to invade a country? Why am I hearing this ? weapons of mass destruction e.g , something that could be a threat the Uk and UsA, thus the need for attacking a middle east country they said.....

Bush needs to apolagise to many many people. .




Yeah or he could of been like Clinton and sold nuclear secrets to the Koreans, who have now threatened America if WE DON'T PAY THEM OFF like Clinton did.

Kind of makes you feel all warm and cozy inside doesn't it.

So now there is North Korea who is a threat, Iraq had a paranoid president who gassed his people and tortured them if he got word that people were opposing him or just talking # about him...
Someone like that is a walking time bomb, and even though that CIA dude falsified documents for Powell, i'm glad they went over there, it's one less evil mother #er the world has to deal with.

Your argument is foolish and everything BUT judicious.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme

Originally posted by Venus

Please post your source of this statement.


Are you serious? LINK




Wow, the google homepage... Excellent source.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Lookit, the fact that Hussein was a part of the WTC attack is history, as well as the fact that he had chemical and biological weapons (I don't call these WMD as they are not; although they are "special" weapons or non-conventional weapons).
Rather than worry about an apology from the democrats or the left, the question is, where are the other special weapons? If you recall, Hussein's special weapons were not marked. They were stockpiled with convention ammunition, and if you didn't know what you were looking for, you wouldn't intentionally find it.

Could it be that an insurgent thought he was using an HE round for a roadside ambush, not knowing it was Sarin? How many more are there like that? Could they go tolob a round into a building and wind up accidentally gassing a neighborhood? Not a good scenario at all!



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:05 PM
link   
The point is that they have to find evidence that SH was developing WMD's after 1998. Everthing they've found so far are from the time we (the western countries including USA) sold them to SH.

I believe that the situation is now worse, you see even if SH had WMD's he was the one in control of them. And he'd know it would be very stupid to use them. Now we don't know if they are there and if yes, who is in control of them. So it's even easier to spread them over the world and let them get in the wrong hands.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Lookit, the fact that Hussein was a part of the WTC attack is history, as well as the fact that he had chemical and biological weapons (I don't call these WMD as they are not; although they are "special" weapons or non-conventional weapons).


What part did Hussein have in 9/11? Didn't Bush say Husssein had nothing to do with it?



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Mr.Crowne, please inform us of how Saddam is connected to 9/11. .



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Well my point of the post was to show that no matter what is found the Lefties will do the opposite of this web sites moniker, deny ignorance.

Seekerof
IMHO even if no more shells are found, every time a person claims there were NO WMD, they will have to have a little asterisk by the post (*except for the sarin and mustard gas shells.)

According to the US military in Iraq the shells were unmarked. This could mean that previously destroyed weapons or even current stock piles could hold nerve gas and not even be known about. Hide in plain site my Dad always used to say.

No one can say there were No WMD in Iraq anymore. It is not a true statement.

Variable



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Variable

IMHO even if no more shells are found, every time a person claims there were NO WMD, they will have to have a little asterisk by the post (*except for the sarin and mustard gas shells.)

No one can say there were No WMD in Iraq anymore. It is not a true statement.

Variable


Your right. Iraq has Weapons of Minor Destruction.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   
IMAO- It was probably just a left over munition from the Iran-Iraq war. It's akin to finding, in the USA, an old civil war bullet or WW1 weapons cache (tons of those near D.C.) near or under your house. Don't be too quick to judge.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Btw, we have been in Iraq for some years now, and have had to actually look for WMDs and have only come up with this. If we have had to look this hard for this long and find one old munition that no one know existed and, at that, a munition that could harm a hundred people at most, none of them Americans, was that really justification for war? Did Saddam's Iraq really pose that great of a danger to us?



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by curme

Originally posted by Venus

Please post your source of this statement.


Are you serious? LINK



My Bad! I'm still new at this....although in 1983 when this happened...apparently we were allies....and since he sold them the weapons in the first place, wouldn't that be an admittance that they "DO EXIST"??



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Why should sensible people even explain themselves to the leftists, who don't understand anything unless it's some drivel that is either some double standard, or a socialist viewpoint.


Hussein was destructive enough just on his own, he killed his way into power, Hussein was making nuclear weapons and was smart enough to disquise and make them mobile.
Do you understand torture rape murder & no freedom?? thats his trademark. Go look at what he did. Really go look at what he did, i'll get links and post pictures for you idiots.


I guess it's ok because you wouldn't mind getting your tongue cut off, or having your dick electrocuted, or your fingers pulled off one by one, hung by a ceiling by the skin on your back, beaten with sticks, then sodomized by a broom stick, meanwhile being laughed at and getting your head kicked in.

It's ok because hes a lot more truthful and less sinister then bush and would NEVER think of the idea to move materials around so he wouldn't get CAUGHT.

Ted Kennedy compares Bush to Hussein.
I don't see Bush getting off on taped torture videos, I don't see a collection of movies, or him walking up to someone and shooting them in the head because that person didn't agree with him.


Did you listen to Hussein's wifes interview?
You still don't get it.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   
My Bad! I'm still new at this....although in 1983 when this happened...apparently we were allies....and since he sold them the weapons in the first place, wouldn't that be an admittance that they "DO EXIST"??

Don't you mean at least DID exist. Of course they did exist....that at least is a proven fact. Now, did SH have them when he was suppossed to get rid of them? That's what the real question should be.

I know.....because this one has been found, it DOES exist (or at least did after it was suppossed to be gotten rid of), but one is definately alot different than many.

Just me 2 pennies.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   



Bush Bush is just as bad as Hussein right.

These above are not good reasons to go over there?
If my father was trying to be murdered by someone like this I'd go over there.

There are so many good reasons to go over there and remove that little #er.


But you liberals love to just point out all the bad.
But never would you point out the bad of the enemy.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:17 PM
link   
You have a very good point TL, but if we were to go after EVERY dictator that does these sorts of things....then we would be at war with most of the countries in Africa and Asia. Where is all the "lets get the bad dictator" when it comes to all these countries? There is no cry for these people......why? I have my own idea but I want your opinion.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Of course they did exist....that at least is a proven fact. Now, did SH have them when he was suppossed to get rid of them? That's what the real question should be.
I know.....because this one has been found, it DOES exist (or at least did after it was suppossed to be gotten rid of), but one is definately alot different than many.



The Iraqi exiles we spoke to call it Hussein's Holocaust: Horrifying stories of mass executions, chemical attacks, and systematic torture. You're about to hear from some of the survivors of Hussein's horrors.

Shalal Aljuburi, Exiled Iraqi: "Of course, on numerous accounts I would have been dead. After two years in jail I decided that I could not stay in this country, under this regime, one more day."

Shalal Aljuburi lived to tell his story, barely. He survived only after fleeing Iraq and years of imprisonment and torture.

Aljuburi: "They had these big sticks, very powerful, they hit people with. Wherever they hit that part would break."
Hoffer: "Bones would break?" Aljuburi: "The bones would break."

A decade later, those scars are still visible: A crooked, busted up nose and broken bones that never properly healed are the marks of a torture machine.

Aljuburi: "They put me in the tank and they have fire underneath the tank. They would light it up and have the tank burning. I was being tortured inside hot tank, until I said I was with the regime or against it."

Aljuburi is one of the few in his family to survive. The list of his dead relatives would fill two buses.

Aljuburi: "From his relatives he killed 154 persons."
Hoffer: "One hundred and fifty four?" Aljuburi: "One hundred and fifty four he executed."





On Chemical Attacks:



Hussein used chemicals to destroy thousands of other Iraqi families.

Dr. Katrine Michael, Iraqi Exile: "I was totally blind. I was blind for three days."

One attack was seared into the memory of this eyewitness. Dr. Michael: "I saw big fire and hundreds of people were around this fire, with kids, with children. These people, they were vomiting, screaming, shouting."

She survived, but many in her village did not.

Dr. Michael: "There is going to appear thousands, millions of stories. Each person in Iraq has a story with Saddam Hussein."
Hoffer: "Of torture?"
Dr. Michael: "Yes."

Hoffer: "So you knew, you were running to save your life?"
Al-Jazaire: "Right. Yes, to save my life because if I stay they catch me."

Al-Jazaire changed his identity to escape Hussein's secret police, who were hunting him during his days as a student protestor. He left behind family and friends.

They all want to go back to help rebuild Iraq. And these survivors of a ruthless dictator have a prediction about the first days of liberation.

Aljuburi: "We'll call the city "Bush." And we will build a Statue of Liberty in the middle of Iraq, for appreciation of what the United States did for us."

We can only hope there is that kind of goodwill toward invading US troops. All three of the exiled Iraqis we spoke to say they plan to return to their country to help rebuild it.
Interview from tortured Iraqi




How quick you lefties forget ...



Wanna watch a torture video?

www.foxnews.com...:56,00.wvx


You see guys getting their necks cut off, thrown from buildings, fingers cut, ect...
really go watch...

Also his son beating solder's feet videos one and two.
www.turks.us...

They had to take the pain because if they didn't they knew they would endure something worse.
But Hussein is such a good guy.

[Edited on 18-5-2004 by TrueLies]



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by MacMerdin
You have a very good point TL, but if we were to go after EVERY dictator that does these sorts of things....then we would be at war with most of the countries in Africa and Asia. Where is all the "lets get the bad dictator" when it comes to all these countries? There is no cry for these people......why? I have my own idea but I want your opinion.


My opinion, is that America has been dealing w/ this dictator for 20+ years. He wanted Bush's father dead, Hussein tried to take of Iran and the oil, tons of people were coming over from Iraq for refugee status, and since the terrorist attacks have been an ongoing problem for 20+ years it was time to start an operation. All the terrorists are Muslim, Bush wanted revenge i'm sure of it, plus it was a good way to get Hussein's ass and liberate the country as well, as these horror stories the country kept hearing. I believe Iraq got the most media coverage out of any other country in the past 20+ years, so thats why ...... All good reasons tho... Like I said, if i was in Bush's position I would do the same thing.............Not be like Clinton and pay em off... I'd oust his palaces, kill his people, kill his sons, hunt him down, and beat his ass for doing everything he's done. I guess you could say give him a taste of his own medicine.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:28 PM
link   
You see guys getting their necks cut off, thrown from buildings, fingers cut, ect...
really go watch...
But Hussein is such a good guy.

I myself have never heard anyone hear say that SH was a good guy. What I hear is that WMD was THE reason we went to war NOT to get rid of a dictator...that's all.



posted on May, 18 2004 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Venus


My Bad! I'm still new at this....although in 1983 when this happened...apparently we were allies....and since he sold them the weapons in the first place, wouldn't that be an admittance that they "DO EXIST"??


No one argues that Saddam didn't have chemical weapons at one time, but not the WMD's
that Bush stated was the main reason to go to war. Bush either lied or was poorly misinformed. Saddam wasn't a threat to anyone.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join