Bush's anouncement

El Banana · Post by **El Banana** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 6:52 pm

Yes, the sheer amount of quoting erros in this thread is appalling...

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:13 pm

Yes, and I have not made a single one of them

jonmartensen wrote:You guys need to work on your quoting skizzillz

fyrtenheimer · Post by **fyrtenheimer** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:15 pm

aww fucken snap

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:23 pm

fyrtenheimer wrote:aww fucken snap

That's right, gizzirl

Simpi · Post by **Simpi** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:00 am

so long as you understand i find your view digusting, repugnant, offensive, dishonorable, and cowardly.

I do but but not offended by your opinion.

irrelevant. ALL of these weapons are weapons HE SAID HE DIDNT HAVE and that you(conutry) said we should believe him when he said he didnt have them, and trust inspectors to go find them.

WMD or Illegal long range weapons, it is irrellevant. both are strongly prohibited.[/quote]

Of course Saddam is a nasty bastard but you made a diplomatic failure when you did not want to give them (inspections) more time. Even Hans Blix said that the time which was given was inadequate to being with.

And Al-samoud missiled were being dismantled before the attack. Quite frankly, it was obvious that you would attack no matter what Saddam would do. PNAC wanted Clinton to attack as early 1998 and when things did not go was he wanted, reasons for invasion changed all the time.

Humanitarian reasons did not appear in PNAC memo of 1998 but terms 'vital interests around the gulf' did appear.

Oh, and quotes just don't seem to work....

Dark Dragon · Post by **Dark Dragon** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:16 am

Simpi, I am going to do the world a great justice, I am going to ignore you and let someone that is good at slaming idiots like you slam you.

So have a nice life you moronic loser.

Oh and to quote right, you must do both tabs, not just the last one.

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 3:03 am

What I wonder is:

If Saddam had totally disarmed as agreed, would we still go into Iraq for his human rights violations?

Mroni · Post by **Mroni** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:42 am

Simpi wrote:so long as you understand i find your view digusting, repugnant, offensive, dishonorable, and cowardly.

I do but but not offended by your opinion.

irrelevant. ALL of these weapons are weapons HE SAID HE DIDNT HAVE and that you(conutry) said we should believe him when he said he didnt have them, and trust inspectors to go find them.

WMD or Illegal long range weapons, it is irrellevant. both are strongly prohibited.

Of course Saddam is a nasty bastard but you made a diplomatic failure when you did not want to give them (inspections) more time. Even Hans Blix said that the time which was given was inadequate to being with.

And Al-samoud missiled were being dismantled before the attack. Quite frankly, it was obvious that you would attack no matter what Saddam would do. PNAC wanted Clinton to attack as early 1998 and when things did not go was he wanted, reasons for invasion changed all the time.

Humanitarian reasons did not appear in PNAC memo of 1998 but terms 'vital interests around the gulf' did appear.

Oh, and quotes just don't seem to work....[/quote]

And they never would have found anything. You see Saddam didnt have to let them inspect a military base without the un calling ahead. They were forbidden to inspect his "Palaces" which are not a building but massive complexes. With those kinds of restrictions what did you expect them to find?

Mr Oni

Mroni · Post by **Mroni** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:44 am

kthulhu wrote:What I wonder is:

If Saddam had totally disarmed as agreed, would we still go into Iraq for his human rights violations?

Maybe after all we went to Haiti on that account.

Mr Oni

NME · Post by **NME** » Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:59 am

I'd enter iraq ahaahahahaahaha see what i did there was the nevermind.