Republican Candidates

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Tarball
& we must put things in perspective.
Why would he get rid of his good stuff, and keep the expired stuff?
How can you claim that Iraq is no more a threat to us then Ven. But Saudi is a haven for the terrorists. How can we draw such a distiction. Saudi is bad, but Iraq was inconsequential?
Bush lied, but he also conviced a sitting president to lie in 98, every major intel organization in the world. And he also got Hussein to act like he was hiding something, even though in doing that he secured his own death. That is some perspective from your Open minded view of the world.
-Close Minded Idiot-
I don't need an open mind since I'm already Right!

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
This is your first decent argument today.
The only problem is that no one in the world thinks he has weapons of mass destruction as was thought in Iraq.
he hasn't engaged our military on a regular basis like Iraq did.
He hasn't violated 17 UN sanctions, nor a cease fire agreement with the United States.
And Chavez's rule may be short lived, as he did not get alot of his socialist agenda passed in the last major elections.

apples & oranges, I will put things in perspective tomorrow. Don't you worry your selfish little mind.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Stop dragging my comments out of perspective. saddam was a piece of sh*t, but that does not justify our troops death or 100,000 plus Iraqis death.
You're comment is extremely selfish.
the 100,000 iraqis deaths is an inflated number. You may not believe in our American ideals, but I do, I believe that everyone is created with god given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And for us to create a government that will do that in the middle of the biggest hot bed in the world. I think that is worth whatever we have to do. But then again we do have a different view on our country.
The Bush concept which is brilliant by the way, but assumes something Democrats are not willing to assume. Is that the rest of the middle east will see how good the Iraqis have in a few years, and the vitriol and war will stop and that will bring about peaceful change in the middle east from the totalitarian government to democratically elected governments. But that assumes that America is good, not something democrats are willing to assume, unless they are in office.
-Close Minded Idiot-
You don't need an open mind if you are already Right!

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Tarball
apples & oranges, I will put things in perspective tomorrow. Don't you worry your selfish little mind.
lol, what can I expect from a skull full of mush?

-narrow minded Idiot-
When you are right, you don't need an open mind.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Like i said earlier today Iraq was no more a threat to America then Venezuela is today. If Bush challenge Venezuela as a nuclear threat or a chemical, biological threat to our way of life. Would you wholeheartedly support him. If you do, you are no more then a Republican puppet not worthy of an honest opinion.
Like I said, a sarin or Mustard gas shell would not create mass destruction. Could it kill 100s of people yes, But that does not define mass destruction. 1000 pound bomb can cause more destruction then a 10 yrs old sarin shell can in a populated area.
I mean no disrespect, but facts are facts.
& we must put things in perspective.
Are you smelling what your trying to shovel.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...ss-destruction
weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction on such a massive scale and so indiscriminately that its very presence in the hands of a hostile power can be considered a grievous threat. Modern weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons—frequently referred to collectively as NBC weapons.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
Why would he get rid of his good stuff, and keep the expired stuff?
How can you claim that Iraq is no more a threat to us then Ven. But Saudi is a haven for the terrorists. How can we draw such a distiction. Saudi is bad, but Iraq was inconsequential?
Bush lied, but he also conviced a sitting president to lie in 98, every major intel organization in the world. And he also got Hussein to act like he was hiding something, even though in doing that he secured his own death. That is some perspective from your Open minded view of the world.
The proof is he didn't have the good stuff, that has been proven.
Only the crap was left, you idiot. Deal with reality. & stop dradding Clinton into something Bush did willfully.
Clinton didn't attack,... Bush did and was proven wrong.
Maybe thats why Clinton didn't attack... durrr

 

[bbq bill]

The only hope for this country's future is Romney. The rest (I mean ALL the rest) are all one in the same. They might have a different letter after their name but they are all bleeding heart liberals and are bent on destroying this country.
From making the government even more of an entitlement grab bag for those who wish to do or be nothing for the rest of their lives, to taxing every last person poor and wealthy all the way to hell.
I wait and watch with baited breath. We will either get a great executive or a modern jimmy carter.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Tarball
The proof is he didn't have the good stuff, that has been proven.
Only the crap was left, you idiot. Deal with reality. & stop dradding Clinton into something Bush did willfully.
Clinton didn't attack,... Bush did and was proven wrong.
Maybe thats why Clinton didn't attack... durrr
dradding?
Look plain and simple Clinton said that he attacked because
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
you saying now that maybe clinton didn't start an all out war because he didn't really believe that they had WMDs.
You claim that Bush fabricated the WMD's argument, but clinton made that same argument 4 years before.
Why don't you stop trying to eliminate damning evidence against your radical claims. Simply because it doesn't help your argument. The Bush Lied argument is possibly the weakest argument against the Iraq war there is. Besides the one that says we are loosing so we should leave.
-close minded idiot-
Right and loving it.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by reefraff
Are you smelling what your trying to shovel.
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article...ss-destruction
weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction on such a massive scale and so indiscriminately that its very presence in the hands of a hostile power can be considered a grievous threat. Modern weapons of mass destruction are either nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons—frequently referred to collectively as NBC weapons.
If our troops found active biological or chemical facilities, you would be right, but that didn't happen did it?
Check the life shelf of these weapons you support. then talk more. or the total destruction of them. What our troops found was not WMDs.
It would be much easlier if you were correct.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by BBQ Bill
The only hope for this country's future is Romney. The rest (I mean ALL the rest) are all one in the same. They might have a different letter after their name but they are all bleeding heart liberals and are bent on destroying this country.
From making the government even more of an entitlement grab bag for those who wish to do or be nothing for the rest of their lives, to taxing every last person poor and wealthy all the way to hell.
I wait and watch with baited breath. We will either get a great executive or a modern jimmy carter.
lol, sure, all we need is federally mandated healthcare like he set up in Mass. That is really conservative.

Just about any bill that Ted Kennedy likes is a bad bill.

Sadly the best "conservative" dropped out of the race yesterday.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Shelf life
Sarin has a relatively short shelf life, and will degrade after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life may be greatly shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA[1], in 1989 the Iraqis destroyed 40 or more tons of sarin that had decomposed, and that some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks owing mostly to impure precursors.
Mustard gas is a blister agent, less likely to kill large numbers of people than nerve agents like sarin and VX. Mustard gas is far less deadly than nerve gas, limiting its appeal as a weapon. But depending on the level of exposure, mustard gas can also leave victims with more lasting injuries. Dr. Jean Pascal Zanders of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says that terrorists might consider using mustard gas to cause economic or social disruption—by contaminating a transportation route, for instance—but probably wouldn’t use it to cause mass casualties.
Both of the chemical agents were more then 10 yrs old, which leaves them useless as a weapon of mass destruction. Especially since they were not weaponized.
Don’t believe me, do your own research
New comment of the week,1 Journeyman is wrong, Once again.

Yet you ignore the fact Iraq had produced binary shells which greatly increase shelf life. It's claimed they wouldn't be effective beyond 5 years yet the military personell that detonated the Sarin shell that had been rigged as an IED suffered from low level exposure to Sarin. Had the shell been detonated in the way it was designed to operate there is little doubt it would have still been effective to some extent.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Tarball
If our troops found active biological or chemical facilities, you would be right, but that didn't happen did it?
Check the life shelf of these weapons you support. then talk more. or the total destruction of them. What our troops found was not WMDs.
It would be much easlier if you were correct.
lol, your arguing that Sarin gas is not a WMD.

I wonder what would happen if I in my basement had expired Sarin gas stockpiled?
Perspective from the
-close minded idot-
I don't want an open mind, liberals might get in.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
dradding?
Look plain and simple Clinton said that he attacked because
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
you saying now that maybe clinton didn't start an all out war because he didn't really believe that they had WMDs.
You claim that Bush fabricated the WMD's argument, but clinton made that same argument 4 years before.
Why don't you stop trying to eliminate damning evidence against your radical claims. Simply because it doesn't help your argument. The Bush Lied argument is possibly the weakest argument against the Iraq war there is. Besides the one that says we are loosing so we should leave.
-close minded idiot-
Right and loving it.
Nothing worse then a narrow minded azzhole that won't accept facts. Show the WMDs. Prove the world wanted bush to invade IRAQ. PROVE bUSH WAS RIGHT BY THE DEATHS OF OUR AMERICA TROOPS.
Look this is very simple, I appreciate the sacrifice of our American Troops & the sacrifice of their families.
But i do not appreciate our troops being sacrificed.
That's whats happening & for some reason you support this war which is sacrificing our troops.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
lol, your arguing that Sarin gas is not a WMD.

I wonder what would happen if I in my basement had expired Sarin gas stockpiled?
Perspective from the
-close minded idot-
I don't want an open mind, liberals might get in.

Like I said 10 yr old plus sarin is not a WMD you freakin fool.
See for yourself, look it up Fool.

 

[darthtang aw]

A road side bomb in 2004 was set up as an IUD. It injured and exposed some of our troops. You defend yourself by saying sarin gas will degrade after a period of weeks to a few months. Ok let's go with that.
This story,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4997808/
States the soldiers experienced symptons of exposure to a mild nerve agent. This hints that the chemicals have started to degrade, which lends to the argument this "bomb" was created a few months before being used up to one year. The bomb came from Iraq, so following the timeline, it HAD to have been created one year to a few days before the troops went into Iraq. Your argument holds no water, once again proof, Hussein had the weapons and moved them and hid them.
Oh and before I forget, I am still waiting on 1 of those 10 reports you promised.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Nothing worse then a narrow minded azzhole that won't accept facts. Show the WMDs. Prove the world wanted bush to invade IRAQ. PROVE bUSH WAS RIGHT BY THE DEATHS OF OUR AMERICA TROOPS.
Look this is very simple, I appreciate the sacrifice of our American Troops & the sacrifice of their families.
But i do not appreciate our troops being sacrificed.
That's whats happening & for some reason you support this war which is sacrificing our troops.
You got that wrong, nothing is worse than a narrow minded and right person, who has looked at the facts. And can refute your flawed argument, thus you have to result to cursing.

Lets add some perspective, with an equally flawed argument. more people died in car crashed last year than US soldiers in Iraq. Did you realise that 42,884 people died in car crashes every year. I don't like people sacrificing their lives just to get somewhere quicker. We need to go back to walking, walking never killed someone.
-closed minded idot azzhole-
So right you have to call me names.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by reefraff
Yet you ignore the fact Iraq had produced binary shells which greatly increase shelf life. It's claimed they wouldn't be effective beyond 5 years yet the military personell that detonated the Sarin shell that had been rigged as an IED suffered from low level exposure to Sarin. Had the shell been detonated in the way it was designed to operate there is little doubt it would have still been effective to some extent.
If a shell was was detonated with 12 yrs old sarin, of course it will effect the general area. I'm not saying it wouldn't. But it can't be considered a weapon of mass destruction that will take out square miles of an area.
What you are suggesting is a misconception, If it was fresh you would be correct.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
You got that wrong, nothing is worse than a narrow minded and right person, who has looked at the facts. And can refute your flawed argument, thus you have to result to cursing.

Lets add some perspective, with an equally flawed argument. more people died in car crashed last year than US soldiers in Iraq. Did you realise that 42,884 people died in car crashes every year. I don't like people sacrificing their lives just to get somewhere quicker. We need to go back to walking, walking never killed someone.
-closed minded idot azzhole-
So right you have to call me names.

You can't use that argument, It doesn't match up per capita. Iraq has a smaller population than the u.s. and number of american troops as well. But one that puts it in percpective better is this one. More people die each year per capita in major cities from auto accidents and homicides than U.S. soldiers that have died in Iraq per capita. The soldiers are actually safer over there than most major U.S. cities.
That one is closer to showing the correlation. Not so many big numbers.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by Tarball
If a shell was was detonated with 12 yrs old sarin, of course it will effect the general area. I'm not saying it wouldn't. But it can't be considered a weapon of mass destruction that will take out square miles of an area.
What you are suggesting is a misconception, If it was fresh you would be correct.
But he was supposed to disarm and dismantle those shells in the first place....you keep skipping that key part.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
You got that wrong, nothing is worse than a narrow minded and right person, who has looked at the facts. And can refute your flawed argument, thus you have to result to cursing.

Lets add some perspective, with an equally flawed argument. more people died in car crashed last year than US soldiers in Iraq. Did you realise that 42,884 people died in car crashes every year. I don't like people sacrificing their lives just to get somewhere quicker. We need to go back to walking, walking never killed someone.
-closed minded idot azzhole-
So right you have to call me names.

Its horrifying how people can drag things out of perspective to justify war or the death of our American troops.