You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-218 
 
Author Message
19 new of 218 responses total.
happyboy
response 200 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 23 23:03 UTC 2006

or pakistan...HOME OF ALQAEDA!
bru
response 201 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 23 23:42 UTC 2006

al Queda in Iraq is responsible seeking to inflict civil war on the nation,
and they might have succeeded.  one attack today included 50 people who
attended a peace march, pulled off a bus and executed.  Hundreds have been
killed today, adn the Shia are taking revenge on Sunni mosques.  Just as the
enemies of peace wanted.

The question is can teh Shia leaders get their followers back under control,
and if not, What side are we going to support.
tod
response 202 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 23 23:44 UTC 2006

al Qaeda of Iraq? BWAHAHAHA!
Nice way to ignore the escaped perps of 9/11 (i.e. Osama)

That's like saying "Hitler Jr." or "AIDS without deficiency"
happyboy
response 203 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 01:18 UTC 2006

re201:  "Oops."  --gw bush
tod
response 204 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 03:51 UTC 2006

Why do we have to support "a side"? I thought we were "building a Democracy"?
gull
response 205 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 07:03 UTC 2006

Re resp:180: If he did have a nuke, it would have had to have come from 
elsewhere.  If he'd had the ability to make one himself, we'd have 
found the production facilities by now. 
 
 
Re resp:198: Unfortunately, while Saddam had the *potential* to 
destabilize the region, by invading we replaced that potential 
instability with certain instability. 
 
 
Re resp:201: I'm highly distressed by the idea that we may end up 
having to pick sides in an Iraqi civil war.  All the worst predictions 
about the outcome of this war are coming to pass.  Do you think 
supporting one Muslim group in a religious civil war against another is 
going to make us safer? 
jep
response 206 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 16:35 UTC 2006

I didn't expect that much discussion from my comment.  In brief, I do 
think Saddam Hussein, as president of Iraq, was a bigger threat than 
Osama bin Laden.

I don't see how anyone can say with any certainty, other than by pure 
blind faith, that there were no WMD in Iraq or being produced in Iraq.  
Are you saying the government couldn't make another mistake as big as 
missing a weapons facility or having things taken out of the country 
without being seen?

I'll try to come back to this item later.  Gotta run now.
jadecat
response 207 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 16:51 UTC 2006

I suppose it all depends on what kinds of WMDs we're talking about-
gaseous biological warfare? Nuclear weapons?


(As an aside, when all this was starting a few years ago I remember
dreaming about walking through a paramilitary camp for teenagers and
having it explained to me that teens had the energy and the willpower to
achieve great change- if you could focus it. That's when I saw someone
crocheting a weapon of mass destruction. )
tod
response 208 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 16:56 UTC 2006

re #206
Pakistan is a bigger threat.  They support al Qaeda.  They have nukes. THey
have WMD. The list goes on.  The policy of pre-emptive war by this
Administration has be hypocritical at best.
cross
response 209 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 17:15 UTC 2006

This response has been erased.

happyboy
response 210 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 17:40 UTC 2006

i wish i was still a cheerleader at andover...then i wouldn't
have to take all these funny brain pills.

     ---gw boosh
tod
response 211 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 17:46 UTC 2006

In the West Texas energy business, George W. Bush started out researching who
owned mineral rights. He later traded mineral and royalty interests and
invested in drilling prospects. He had started his own oil and gas company
by 1978, taking $17,000 from his education trust fund to set up Arbusto Energy
(arbusto means Bush in Spanish). The company fell on hard times when oil
prices fell. He made several attempts to revive the business, first by
changing the company's name and later by merging with other companies. In
1983, Bush.s company was rescued from failure when Spectrum 7 Energy
Corporation, a small oil firm owned by William DeWitt and Mercer Reynolds,
bought it. Bush became chief executive officer. Harken Energy Corporation
acquired Spectrum 7 in 1986, after Spectrum had lost $400,000. In the buyout
deal, Bush and his partners were given more than $2 million worth of Harken
stock for the 180-well operation. Bush became a director and was hired as a
"consultant" to Harken. He received another $600,000 of Harken stock, and has
been paid between $42,000 and $120,000 a year. By the spring of 1987, Harken
was in need of cash. So Bush and his fellow Harken officials met with Jackson
Stephens, head of Stephens, Inc., an investment bank in Little Rock, Arkansas
(Stephens contributed $100,000 to the Reagan-Bush campaign in 1980 and gave
another $100,000 to the Bush dinner committee in 1990.) Stephens arranged for
Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) to provide $25 million to Bush.s company in
return for a stock interest in Harken. As part of the deal, Sheikh Abdullah
Bakhsh, a Saudi real estate tycoon and financier, joined Harken's board as
a major investor. Stephens, UBS, and Bakhsh each had ties to the infamous,
scandal-ridden Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). In 1990, Bush
sold his remaining stock options and left the oil business....
happyboy
response 212 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 17:53 UTC 2006

don't!  klg's head will explode in fits of gop bootlicking 
denial!
tod
response 213 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 17:56 UTC 2006

The razor-thin Bush win in the Alaska GOP Caucus was by a mere five votes over
publisher Steve Forbes.
happyboy
response 214 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 18:01 UTC 2006

the unblinking stealth libertarian?
tod
response 215 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 18:18 UTC 2006

Corporate robots of the same fabric but different paisley designs.
happyboy
response 216 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 24 18:47 UTC 2006

all national interests are now secondary to corporate interests.

      ---dick *shotguuuun* cheney
gull
response 217 of 218: Mark Unseen   Feb 27 06:18 UTC 2006

Re resp:206: Naturally it's impossible to prove a negative. However, it 
seems highly unlikely at this point that there are (or were) any 
significant quantities of WMD in Iraq. 
wilt
response 218 of 218: Mark Unseen   May 16 23:52 UTC 2006

HACKED BY GNAA LOL JEWS DID WTC LOL
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-174   175-199   200-218 
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss