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.
Originally posted by just_a_pilot
We should get out of the U.N. and right now. I mean just look at all the negatvie posts on here from all of the f'ing' countries trying to tell us in the United States that we f'd up voting President Bush in for a second term, that we ourselves caused 9-11, that the world hates us, blah blah blah and on and on.
Well guess what *world*, we exorcised our rights and America decided as a majority that we want Bush in office.
Bring me the G.D. UN flag and I would happily burn that rag in front of the Headquarters in New York.
Then I would pee on the ashes so it wouldn't smoulder and dilute the cities air with blue and white ink fumes.
[edit on 11/5/2004 by just_a_pilot]
Originally posted by devilwasp
sorry i will rephrase the question then, do you want a guy in charge that is prepared to attack a country wich has no chance of hurting your country or any nearby countries because some refugees told him there was a lot of weird looking trucks and stuff in the desert?
Originally posted by keholmes
well then i'll answer it another way, yes. why, because i'm not stupid enough to believe the rest of your post.
Originally posted by keholmes
devilwasp
consider what? i'm not sure of the question.
Originally posted by devilwasp
you are not considering whether or not you want a leader who will invade a country to let off some anger and to get some oil.
Originally posted by keholmes
well i don't have to consider that anymore clinton is gone.
He said he believed that insurgents who rigged the artillery shell as a bomb didn't know it contained the nerve agent, and that the dispersal of the nerve agent from such a rigged device was very limited.
let me pick myself up off the floor�.the guys who triggered it didn�t realize it was WMD so it doesn�t count as WMD that has got to be the lamest rationalization i�ve heard to date . And what would be an Ex-regime, I�m not familiar with any other than Saddam�s? if that�s the Ex-regime your speaking of then that would kind of be the regime were WMD was an issue.
Originally posted by devilwasp
�������..
now thsi is just one exstract but i want to highlight the fact that the iraqi spokesperson did not think they knew it was a nerve round because it has no markings, so they probably thought it was a normal shell round, and it probably dated from an Ex-regime time.
now i know "proably" is not good enough but thats all they have right now. it can go etheir way.
��������.
Originally posted by keholmes
lol: let me pick myself up off the floor�.the guys who triggered it didn�t realize it was WMD so it doesn�t count as WMD
that has got to be the lamest rationalization i�ve heard to date . And what would be an Ex-regime, I�m not familiar with any other than Saddam�s? if that�s the Ex-regime your speaking of then that would kind of be the regime were WMD was an issue.
BTW, have you ever heard of eric rudolph, or even more on point seen any figures from the illicit drug trade in the US. i just love it when people make the assumption that if a material was present in a country, that it should be easy to find.
well the reasoning wasn�t that they knew what WMD�s are, it was that they had them�..nice spin though.
Originally posted by devilwasp
uhh no thats not what i meant but go ahead laugh all you want. the fact is that there was no way the iraqi's could have known it was one so how could they have used it as a WMD?
uh wasn�t that more than 3 decades ago. So you think that both are 40 year old 155mm rounds....what military might have left those from that time. i doubt the prior regime had 155mm artillery. And it�s funny that you took part of the article incorporated into your argument and then spun it
Originally posted by devilwasp
uhh you do remember sadam done a coup and took the government right?
Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf war (search). Experts believe both the sarin and mustard gas weapons date back to that time.
"It was a weapon that we believe was stocked from the ex-regime time and it had been thought to be an ordinary artillery shell set up to explode like an ordinary IED and basically from the detection of that and when it exploded, it indicated that it actually had some sarin in it," Kimmitt said.
Originally posted by devilwasp
uhh no since drugs in the USA doesnt concern me.
read the article, yes�.and it wasn�t one it was two. One of which was a type the UN didn�t even know that saddam had, the other was 1 of 550, that saddam and the UN said were destroyed. more proof of those so sucessful inspectors, he had weapons of a type that they didn't even know of.
Originally posted by devilwasp
well then how did they find this one? pure luck?\
Originally posted by NWObringer
They need to be kicked out of our country, that's just sad, especially since it damages foreign relations.
Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
Burning the flag is just an act of expression
burning the UN flag means you have discourse to the rest of the peace loving countries, don't be supprised that when the next act of catastophic terror occurs, the UN thumbs it's nose at the U.S.
We really need to drop the ticked-off cowboy attitude and work towards reunification. United we stand now applies to the World, not the U.S. standing alone. Remember, everyday the greenback become worth less, our buying power diminishes and go-it alone attitude just smacks in the face of all of our debtors.
Things you should not be allowed to do,
Never placed on door matts or ground to be stepped on. Wearing in on one's butt. Burning a flag as vandelism.
Originally posted by verfed
Burn all of the UN flags in protest of that corrupt bloodmoney loving Jew hating organization.