None. Note his location. Big blue socialist state on the left coast!Great place to visit but you wouldn't want to pay taxes there! Laws against everything! Total gubment control. Can't even be trusted to pump their own $3 gas!

Get yer heads outta the sand and look in Syria for Saddam's toys, liberal prancing pantywastes!

 

If we sent gang members to fight, they'd get their *** handed to them..

You know those punk-a$$es are only effective when they travel in packs, and/or when shooting from moving vehicles...

They're just a punch of snivvelling punks & punkettes that are only in the gang because they'd scared to be an individual (Safety in numbers).

But, I know you guys know that- and I'm preaching to the choir.


Now, if we gathered up all the able-bodied illegals, trained them- and told them if they come home alive, they would be made citizens, along with their immediae familes..

We'd have one kick-*** military.

 

Agreed. Gang bangers and wannabees are just a bunch of cowards with their drive bys and hit and run tactics. Never knew one of these buttercups to stand and fight like men. Little use in the fight on terror. Same goes for the ultra right skinhead trailer trash. Let them put their C.A. Jones where their mouths are and join the militias on the border or suit up and head for the gulf instead of jumping some innocent black kid behind a 7-11.

 

I don’t know if I would necessarily agree that gang bangers couldn’t do the job. Don’t get me wrong because they are a bunch of p*ussies with absolutely no *****. However, in the dark armed with guns and other weapons they think they are the chit.

Gang bangers are no different than terrorist. They all use the same tactics which is what cowards use. They use fear to try and rule and/or persuade people to their side. So, even though they may get their asses handed to them why not clean America up because some of them gang bangers would be taken out some terrorist…

The only good terrorist and the only good gang bangers are DEAD ones…

And for the record I think of the right wing extremist, like the skin heads, KKK etc as terrorist as well. No need for them so send them over as well, lets see if they really have the ***** the claim to have…

 

Kobiashi

How am I doing with the ”than” vs. “then”? Regardless, once I get that under control I can then have a little more confidence in my English which I know sucks…

 

<RepeatLesson>
1) North Korea claims to have nuclear weapons and freely admits developing them.

2) Iraq claimed not to have nuclear weapons, denied developing them and what do you know...didn't have any.

</RepeatLesson>

-Fatz

 

<reality>

Ok, let me type this very s*l*o*w*l*y …

Iraq claimed to have WMD’S and lots of them. Saddam claimed to have WMD’S and lots of them. Saddam had proved he in fact had WMD’S by mass killings.

The ENTIRE free world claimed Iraq had WMD’S and lots of them. The entire free world believed that Saddam “may” have had and “may” have been trying to develop nukes as well.

Nonetheless there is not much difference between nukes, chemical, and biological weapons since they are ALL WMD’S.

Therefore, my good friend, it DON’T matter what North Korea claims they have or don’t have because you nor I nor anyone else knows for sure. By your standards we will have to wait until North Korea makes a chit load of people glow from radiation and then we will know for SURE if they have them or not.

Just applying the same logic as you do, or have for Iraq. You claim we have just been screwing around in Iraq based on misinformation about them having WMD’S which ALSO included a possibility of nukes.

So, why change your logic now for North Korea? Is there something about Koreans you don’t like so now it’s ok to make a preemptive strike against them?

I apologize but I find it very hard to follow your logic. Please help me understand, why it was NOT ok to go into Iraq when the entire free world, including Saddam himself, claimed they had WMD’S, why it was NOT ok to finally, after 10 years, force them to abide by international laws and the agreements Saddam himself made.

Is there any United Nations mandate that gives us permission to go into North Korea? Do we have the ENTIRE free world behind us, as far as North Korea actually having nukes and the ability to develop nukes? Do we have a coalition to go with us?

North Korea, as far as we know, posses no more threat to us now as Iraq did before we invaded them so why must we now act?

Why do you have two completely different opinions and stands on two identical situations? Do you sometimes stop at red lights and then other times stop at green lights?

What is your solution to the problem in North Korea and is it the very same solution you would have had for Iraq? It should be identical since both situations are identical. In other words if you stop at one red light you should always stop at all red lights, no?

Do they not require people in Chicago to stop at red lights? Do you have red stop lights where you live?

</reality>

 

This is hilarious, now we have to convice the same people that North Korea is a threat that have been Banging us on the head about how much of a threat Iraq was. We "Had" to invade Iraq or we all would die, but there's no rush with NK. NOW NK has nukes. Under Bush's watch, not Clintons.

This just proves to me that if it was the Democrats who invaded Iraq the Republican's would be fighting it every step of the way.

 

Good to see you again my good friend…

I don’t think your following the thread. I absolutely support taking out North Korea. It was an easy decision for me since it is the same situation as Iraq was which has now been taking care of.

My post are to show how liberals flip-flop at any opportunity they get.

However, North Korea now has nukes thanks to Clinton having North Korea sing some paper and then tossing it in the trash and let them go about their business of developing nukes. Maybe he helped them along like China and just supplied them some technology but I don’t recall him getting any HUGE donations from North Koreans like China and we know slick ***** ain’t giving anything up for free…

Point is those who did NOT support our decision on Iraq really have no business speaking up on North Korea unless it’s the same ”We love commies and terrorist so please leave them alone” slogans they love…

So, where did you stand on Iraq and is your stand on North Korea identical as it was for Iraq? If not, do you too only stop at red lights and then sometimes at green lights?

 

My position was I really didn't see Iraq as that much of a threat. We had the majority of the country under a No fly zone, we had inspectors on the ground, and were monitoring what was going in and out of the country. Not to mention we were scoring cheap oil from them.

I've been saying countries like North Korea and Iran Are threats. Obviously Afghanistan was and I still think OBL still IS. We lost our focus and now the guys responsible for 9/11 are still running around. That aggrevates me.

Clinton had NK's nukes under surveilance and sealed in containers with Camera's on them. We had inspectors there. He said if you opened those container's it would mean attack. NK Didn't open the container's of nuclear material under Clintons watch.

Bush said he wouldn't even talk to NK or offer them "appeasement". They opened the containers and kicked out the inspectors, Bush did nothing. Now we're "appeasing" them anyway with Cash and food. 5 years and we're right back where we started from, but NOW they actually DO have nukes.

We attacked Iraq when our "intellegence" showed a van parked next to a field. "it's a mobile biological weapons lab", Give me a break. Our intellegence in NK shows them burying a Nuke in the ground and setting up Grand stands to watch the show. Our intellegence on NK shows Genocide camps and mass grave yards. We've CAUGHT NK selling missiles to Libya.

Clinton did a Lot more than NOTHING at least.

We're currently selling bunker busters to Israel in hopes they'll take care of Iran for us. That's just sad...


btw, it's good to debate with you again.

 

The entire free world eh? Does that include France and Germany? Or what about Hans Blix and Richard Clarke to name just a few that doubted those claims.

That's absurd, does anybody know for sure that the Easter Bunny doesn't exist? Can you prove it definitively?

No, but that didn't stop us from going into Iraq did it?

Are you kidding me? Here is a quote right now on CNN.com "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. intelligence community is monitoring what appears to be preparations by North Korea to conduct a nuclear test, a Defense Department official told CNN Friday."

They are not the same situations. Iraq through years of sanctions, no fly zones and inspections was clearly not a threat. North Korea plans to test nukes any day. That is a threat.

 

This statement is demonstrably, and historically false.

Your desire to reinforce your own belief system is causing you to disregard facts; you're unwilling to assimiliate new information when it contradicts what you've decided the truth should be.

In other words, take thee to a therapist; you don't want to go through life like that. You'll never be happy.

-Fatz, out.

 

All we know for sure is that Saddam had Chemical & Biological weapons during and after Desert Storm. That's why we had to take those damned Anthrax shots.... Our M8 alarms went off one night all around the site- that scared us *****less- but, no one died/got hurt- at least that we know of.. Let me tell you though- nothign will pucker your @$$hole like sitting around- thinking the war is over- you're playing a rousing game of spades, and our gas mask is slung over your shoulder instead of on you waist- then you have that M8 alarm go off...

The test kit came back negative- but; there's nothing like not knowing...

Anyhoo, we know he had chemical weapons becaus he gassed the ***** out of the Kurds near the end of, or shortly after the 1991 Gulf war; killing several- if not hundreds or more...

A single, well-placed biological weapon has the ability to wipe out the planet- as we know it; in terms of devastation- a nuke will never come close to it's destructive power... But, a bio-weapon will never have the immediate scaring power, the "Oh *****" factor, and the destructive power of a nuclear weapon.

 

Actually, it is historically correct. Are you telling me Saddam never claimed to have WMD’S? That would be news to me and the vast majority of the world’s population, especially in the Middle East…

It is not I who is unwilling to assimilate new information but rather those like you who use this new information after the facts to political destroy those who were brave enough to take action to protect our country.

We had “alleged” facts about the threat Iraq posed to the world and the entire free world agreed to those facts INCLUDING France and Germany since they were part of the United Nations. The only difference with countries like France and Germany were that they were on the take, getting big money to not take ACTION. In other words Saddam was buying their votes, that is currently alleged as well but there are many facts coming forth day by day to prove that out…

People like you ONLY want to use facts after a situation to try and make others look naïve for their actions but what really happens is many people just don’t want to hear what these kind of people have to say because they flip-flop to much.

If there ever was a great example of using preemptive strikes on another nation based on all the facts “at hand, at the time” and the entire free world agreeing that another country (Iraq) was a threat to the free world it was Iraq.

We do not have that kind of example with North Korea at the moment. Since we don’t have nearly the facts and nearly the support, like we did in Iraq, then why should anyone listen to people like you about what we should do with North Korea?

Remember, we had these facts about Iraq for over 10 years, we had resolution after resolution in the United Nations stating those facts over and over yet at the end of the day there are some people he said we should have gave it more time, waited, basically until Saddam sold it to a terrorist to deliver in America and then we may have had the necessary “proof”.

So, for those like you, we need to wait until we can prove a terrorist brings a nuke and lights it off in America and then hope we can prove it came for North Korea, then and only then will we “maybe” have permission to strike back…

Perfect example of someone losing a debate…

 

"Actually, it is historically correct. Are you telling me Saddam never claimed to have WMD’S? That would be news to me and the vast majority of the world’s population, especially in the Middle East…"

You're being kind of "tricky" here XLT. Are you telling me Sadaam was saying He HAD WMD right before we invaded him? NO.

Are you saying Sadaam WASN'T saying that he destroyed them all before we invaded him? (something our 400+ inspectors on the ground couldn't disprove) That would be false.

So what's the point of your above statement??
NK Isn't saying they've destroyed all their WMD. On the contrary, they're saying they're INCREASING their arsonals....

Why the tricks?