Gallup: Americans Favor President Meeting w/ US Enemies

[Guest yod]

Are you saying he used nukes on his own people? Because that's what the Bush administration led Americans to believe he possessed. And that was false.

your memory is selectively convenient for your point!?

The charge was that he used WMD (weapons of mass destruction) on his people. This includes all forms of biological, chemical, and nuclear armaments.

And for the 987,678,943,235 time....Saddam refused U.N. Resolutions 19 times that would have allowed an inspection to either prove or disprove that he was trying to buy weapons grade uranium in Africa. This was not only American intelligence, but EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD had good reason to believe that Saddam was attempting to get nuclear capability and no one knew how far along he was.

So your only accusation against Bush is that he isn't a coward like your liberal heros

There comes a time when talking is counter-productive. That time was long past and exhausted before we did anything.

[Rick-Parker]

You know very well what I'm talking about. You do it quite often. what I'm talking about is you saying: "..Is there anything else I can help you with, Brandon?" at the end of your post, then going back and editing it out to say "No need for speculation and hand-waving. Your answer is right there." Look in the mirror if you want to be condecending. Try not to act like a jerk and you won't have to go back and edit out what you say. Or did you forget that when you post something, it get emailed out to the people who are active on that forum?

I often edit my posts after I post them...there is an edit button. But I never insulted you in the first place, so for someone who has been speaking in hostile tone, you are being mighty touchy.

And the question remains, wouldn't editing out insults make me less of a jerk? Would you rather I edit insults into my posts, Brandon?

Correction: Saddam USED weapons of mass distruction on his own people. He had them. He just moved them out of the country when he knew the jig was up.

Are you saying he used nukes on his own people? What kind of WMDs are you talking about?

The Bush administration led Americans to believe Saddam had nuclear weapons, and that was a lie.

What I would rather is you not throwing out insults in the first place. You are condescending at times, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so with me.

The UN placed many sanctions (toothless I might add) on him. All major intelligence agencies in the world believed he had WMDs. But, this has nothing to do with the OP.

Ya know, I don't want to play with you any more. Enjoy!

[The Lorax]

your memory is selectively convenient for your point!?

The charge was that he used WMD (weapons of mass destruction) on his people. This includes all forms of biological, chemical, and nuclear armaments.

And for the 987,678,943,235 time....Saddam refused U.N. Resolutions 19 times that would have allowed an inspection to either prove or disprove that he was trying to buy weapons grade uranium in Africa.

Are you aware that Saddam effectively surrendered and capitulated before our invasion of Iraq?

This was not only American intelligence, but EVERY NATION IN THE WORLD had good reason to believe that Saddam was attempting to get nuclear capability and no one knew how far along he was.

Sorry, but no. In many cases, like the Nigerian uranium, the US simply filtered preexisting intel through agencies in other countries in order for it to look like legitimate news. It wasn't. The Nigerian uranium affair was a hoax.

So your only accusation against Bush is that he isn't a coward like your liberal heros

There comes a time when talking is counter-productive. That time was long past and exhausted before we did anything.

Thanks, but I can speak for myself.

[Ovedya]

that's what I don't think you really understand, Mr cheese-pickle-and-tomato-on-a-sesame-seed-bun

No...You're wrong. It's "Two all-beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions, on a sesame seed bun."

Please get it right.........sheesh.

[The Lorax]

What I would rather is you not throwing out insults in the first place. You are condescending at times, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so with me.

It's funny, there are so many people here for whom personal attacks are a hobby. Attacking Obama, attacking Hillary, attacking liberals in general. And yet these inveterate attackers become hurt crybabies when someone so much as reflects their own hostility.

I never insulted you, Brandon. My post was slightly condescending, and that's exactly why I edited it. I edited it to be civil. But you're still calling me a jerk (which, by the way, is an actual insult). Heck, you're crying about the fact that I had the decency to clean it up. Get over it.

And with that off my chest. let's have a real conversation.

[Rick-Parker]

What I would rather is you not throwing out insults in the first place. You are condescending at times, and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from doing so with me.

It's funny, there are so many people here who thrive on attacking others. Attacking Obama, attacking Hillary, attacking liberals in general. And yet these inveterate attackers become utter crybabies when someone so much as reflects their own hostility.

I never insulted you, Brandon. My post was slightly condescending, and that's exactly why I edited it. I edited it to be civil. But you're still calling me a jerk--which, by the way, is an actual insult. Heck, you're crying about the fact that I had the decency to clean it up.

Get over it.

And with that off my chest. let's have a real conversation.

BITE ME (edit that, jerk)

[odditblue]

Hey, a bunch of my crazy friends might like to meet with them... or rather meet up with them...

They'd show 'em a real good ol time I reckon.

[JustinM]

Wow, there's no getting through to you is there? WMD's are any weapons that could be used to extinguish mass populations and cause overkill (maximum damage to lives and infrastructure).

I wasn't sold on the war in Iraq with the idea that gas would be cheaper, please find where President Bush stated that, prior to the assault on Iraq.

Nuclear weapons, by the way, are the only weapons of mass destruction allowed by the Geneva Convention, all other WMD's have been banned.

Your whole argument is weak. Iran is not stronger, it may feel emboldened (foolishly), but it's North and Western Borders are now defended by the US. Afghanistan and Iraq have much weaker governments/militaries than the US and now we are guarding their borders and putting the squeeze on Iran. Iran has nowhere to go, it can't expand, all it can do is pay some poor, destitute and desperate peasants to blow themselves up and wreak havoc in various spots around the world. Which is why Iran is developing nuclear weapons. They think they will gain influence in the world by posessing those weapons, but that isn't the case. They will be isolated and shunned by the West. Weapons don't buy influence, effective diplomatic foreign policy does. Iran may think it will be able to influence the world by threatening it, but it will get pummeled and the government will be overthrown and the thugs in power will be dealt with in the same manner as all other dictators in the world that lost their power. They will be hung, shot, stabbed etc. Use your imagination.

America has inflluence in the world, not soley because of our advanced military, but because we have something to negotiate with. What does Iran have to negotiate with in comparison to us? Less than 1 percent of the world's refined energy? Technology? Goods? Services? Knowledge? It has nothing, it produces nothing and is just another scrappy dog.

Iran doesn't have the economy to influence the rest of the world, it has nothing to offer us, so when we decide to speak with the dogs in power, when they have nothing substantial to negotiate, then we are appeasing them. Since they have nothing to offer us, it means we would have to make the first offer.

So, your idea is to offer them something so they will behave and get along with the rest of the world. Just what do you think we should offer them? Bribery is Appeasement and when Iran has nothing to bargain but a signature on a sheet of paper and a "promise" to behave, that is exactly what we are doing.

What happens when you give your children nothing but rewards for bad behavior? More bad behavior and little spoiled hellions that throw hissifits in the market.

Unfortunately a hissyfit that Iran could throw is a friggin 50 MgTn nuclear warhead.

[JustinM]

quote lorax: "It's funny, there are so many people here for whom personal attacks are a hobby. Attacking Obama, attacking Hillary, attacking liberals in general. And yet these inveterate attackers become hurt crybabies when someone so much as reflects their own hostility."

At the risk of throwing this thread off topic I will respond to this hysterical comment.

Obama, Hillary and "Liberals" are impersonal people, most likely none of us here are going to meet them and most likely they are not going to take the time to read this forum, but that being the case, they are more than people, they are public "servants" and are also symbols of everything that opposes our Judeo-Christian Values. That is the consequence of public office. It is not a personal attack to criticize them, it's called feedback and as American Citizens we have the Right (1st Amendment) to criticize them all we want. Liberals are an even more vague symbol to direct our opposition to. If you fall into the category of liberal and believe in secular humanism (progressivism) values that are in direct opposition to everything True Christians believe in, you need to be prepared to deal with the consequences of being an anti-Christian on a Christian Website.

[The Lorax]

It is not a personal attack to criticize them, it's called feedback and as American Citizens we have the Right (1st Amendment) to criticize them all we want.

It's one thing to criticize their policies--that's a good thing, in my opinion. It's one thing to criticize them as politicians, but it's another thing to attack them as people, to speculate about their faith with no evidence, to call them closet Muslims, and to attack their families. That's different. That's personal.

You need to be prepared to deal with the consequences of being an anti-Christian on a Christian Website.

That you would call me--a Christian on this Christian website--an anti-Christian...is the epitome of a personal attack.

You need to get a hold of yourselves. You guys claim to be Christians and you even claim to say who isn't a Christian at heart, and yet you speak so much hate. The hatred and bitterness you preach completely contradicts your self-proclaimed monopoly on Christ.

Clean it up.