I never saw this on the 6 o'clock news....

[Slider]

Ok, by know, most have you have gotten the idea that I support the fact that we went to war in Iraq, and have insisted that G. Bush had not lied about the existance of WMD in Iraq, & that Saddam was actively carrying out research into Nuclear weapons. However, I have been unable to find any information from either American newspapers, or media outlets, or European ones to back up my claims.

Untill know that is.... Last night at work I was bored to tears, and was surfing the Web looking for news sources when I came across this sight, World Tribune.com wich specializes in World News, not American, not Conservative, or Liberal news, or spin of any kind, but factual World News. Wow...cool...unbiased reporting.

Then I found this article, wich also contains a link to a report given by the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission to the U.N. Security Council. Note, this is the actual document wich was given to the U.N. Security Council by said group detailing their findings about Saddam's weapons programs.

Here is the link to the article;

http://216.26.163.62/2004/me_iraq_06_11.html

Note the date of the article, Friday, June 11, 2004. Well after America invaded Iraq.

The report was given to the Security Council on the 28th of May, 2004.

BTW the SA-2 IS nuclear capable. It carries a 295 kg nuclear warhead wich is believed to have a yield of 15 kT. And the U.N. knows he had procured at least 380 engines for this missile AFTER the U.N. weapons inspection team where ousted from Iraq in 1999.

Read the report to the Security Council yourself, but I think it's pretty clear that he was still pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, as well as Biological, and Chemical weapon delivery systems.

See the below article for info on this

http://www.s-t.com/daily/09-02/09-05-02/a01wn009.htm

You be the judge...

[Warriorbird]

I see a Liddy, Hannity, Savage, Coulter ad on the page. Some other verification would be nice.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I see a Liddy, Hannity, Savage, Coulter ad on the page. Some other verification would be nice.

LMAO

All you need is O'Reilly's big noggin on the page and you'll be able to create the conservative Volton.

[Parkbandit]

I have to agree with the liberal freaks. Not quite what I would consider an unbiased source.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I see a Liddy, Hannity, Savage, Coulter ad on the page. Some other verification would be nice.

LMAO

All you need is O'Reilly's big noggin on the page and you'll be able to create the conservative Volton.

O'Reilly is soo the black lion!

[Ilvane]

Ann Coulter just makes me laugh she's so obnoxious.

-A

[Slider]

sooo....a report given to the U.N. Security Council, not by the U.S. but by the U.N.'s own Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission is an obvious republican ploy? Did you actually read the report given, or did you just see the ad and say "Oh it's BS"?

[Bobmuhthol]

I suck at HTML, but the point is there.

[Edited on 15-3-05 by Miss X]

[Bobmuhthol]

That article is being hosted on a MaximumASP server, which is free web hosting. My HTML document has more credibility for the sole reason that it's on a server that someone actually owns.

[Bobmuhthol]

Oh, and when I say that article, I mean worldtribune.com entirely. It's at a different IP, but also belongs to MaximumASP. The reliability is simply devastating.


The second article, unfortunately, is owned by a significant organization: Ottaway Newspapers Inc. Fortunately, though, it's a terrible site and is full of ads and most likely adware.

[Edited on 3-13-2005 by Bobmuhthol]

[Back]

Bob=Good lad.

World Tribune is also owned by a company called East West, based in Springfield, VA.

You might also notice that almost all of their articles are credited with “SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM”.

Like Bob said...

[Slider]

Ok...since the World Tribune is an obvious ultra-right wing, Bush Administration, ploy to deceive you all...Would you beleive it if I gave you the same fucking report from the U.N.'s own websight?

http://www.un.org/english/

I'll even walk you through it...go to the link for "Situation In Iraq"

http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocusRel.asp?infocusID=50&Body=Iraq&Body1=inspec t

Go down the page till you see the UNMOVIC listings....with me so far? Ok, under quarterly reports...go to the date 28May2004...an look! OMG...it's the very same document that the World Tribune qouted...WTF? Well...I guess that the U.N. must be another secret dupe of the Bush Administration...or perhaps their webserver is substanderd Bob...yeah...that must be it...can't trust 'em if they don't use an official Bob endorsed webserver...but at least no adds for Liddy, Hannity, and Co. on their sight...so maybe Warriorbird might beleive 'em... (nah...guess not).

Or maybe it's just UNMOVIC that is really a front for the Bush Administration...yeah...I mean...just look at their College of Commissioners

The Secretary-General has appointed the following as Commissioners for UNMOVIC:

Adigun Ade Abiodun (Nigeria)
Reinhard Böhm (Germany)
Susan Burk (USA)
Chen Weixiong (China)
Ronald Cleminson (Canada)
Thérèse Delpech (France)
Yuriy V. Fedotov (Russian Federation)
Gunterio G. Heineken (Argentina)
Hannelore Hoppe (United Nations - Department for Disarmament Affairs)
Takanori Kazuhara (Japan)
Roque Monteleone-Neto (Brazil)
Olga Pellicer (Mexico)
Annaswamy Narayana Prasad (India)
Anatoliy Scherba (Ukraine)
Cheikh Sylla (Senegal)
Bryan Wells (United Kingdom of Britain and Northern Ireland)

Yup, all of those countries are so deep in Bush's pocket that they are no doubt going to be applying for statehood any day now. Especially France, Germany, China and Russia...hell...they all are well known Bush endorsers...might as well be puppets for the way they constantly agree with him.

Oh look...under the big red link titled "Unresolved Issues Report"; it's a 138 page document of more Bush lies detailing Iraq's non-existant WMD program...yup...more BS for sure.

Thanks for making it so clear to me that the U.N., and UNMOVIC are just another example of that dasterdly Bush's Plan For World Domination

Slider, no matter what you say or do to them you will be wrong. don't waste your breath.

[Overlord]

Domination is a strong word...........BUT NOT STRONG ENOUGH!!

[Slider]

Yeah, I know...but willfull ignorance just pisses me off to no end...ignorance can be excused...but when you can't even recognize the truth when it slaps you in the face...that gets under my skin.

[Warriorbird]

Curiously enough, there's a reason that this was ignored. All they found WAS engines. They didn't find and we haven't found any completed and or payloaded missiles.

There's a reason this wasn't news, except to a far right puppet paper.

From the same document:

"In his testimony, the head of the Iraq Survey Group noted that the Group continued to look for weapons of mass destruction. He also said he did not believe that the Survey Group had sufficient information and insight at that time to make final judgements with confidence as to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programmes and to determine the truth of their existence. He said that more work had to be done to gather critical information about the regime, its intentions and its capabilities. He also pointed to a number of practical difficulties facing his team, including security, delays in translating documentation and the continued reluctance of Iraqi personnel to speak freely"

"In general, from 1999 to 2002 Iraq procured a variety of dual-use biological and chemical items and materials, including chemicals, equipment and spare parts. To date, UNMOVIC has found no evidence that these were used for proscribed chemical or biological weapon purposes. Although some of the goods may have been acquired by Iraq outside the framework of mechanisms established under Security Council resolutions, most of them were later declared by Iraq to UNMOVIC in its semi-annual monitoring declarations."

"This can be illustrated by the acquisition of at least 380 SA-2 missile engines for Iraq’s prime missile establishment by an Iraqi Government-owned trading company controlled by the Military Industrialization Commission through a local Iraqi trading company and a foreign trading company. UNMOVIC is currently analysing documents available to it in order to establish the source of the engines procured through the local trading company and of any additional SA-2 engines (or other missile-related items) that
might have been procured by Iraq since 1999."

[Overlord]

Just a pathetic inventory check. Besides, if you had nuclear weapons would you keep them in your cupboard or locked in the basement?

[Parkbandit]

While I agree that Iraq had WMD and that it would not surprise me in the least if they were carted off to Syria or hidden somewhere.. the worldtribune.com site is completely biased. I knew that when there was a hyperlink to the drudge report.

[Slider]

Ok Warriorbird, but your forgetting that as of 31OCT1998 that Iraq had refused to cooperate with UNSCOM inspection teams. Those teams where withdrawn from Iraq in Dec of that year...that is the LAST TIME that U.N. weapons inspectors where in Iraq untill AFTER the US invaded in 2003. UNSCOM's websight gives a chronological overveiw of Iraq's continual refusal to cooperate with disarmament teams, it's threats against UNSCOM personel, and it's attempts to conceal or move it's WMD programs sights.

This goes on from APRIL of 1991 right up until the withdrawel of UNSCOM teams from Iraq in 1998. So for 7 years Saddam lied, concealed, and continued to work on his WMD programs even while UNSCOM teams where there actively trying to prevent him from doing so....but then after the teams leave, he just stops? Says "Fuck it, I won't do this any more"? Your really willing to take his word for it? After 7 fucking years of his lies, NOW, because Bush said he has them, he doesn't?

He had 4 fucking years before we invaded to work on them...but he didn't because Saddam Hussain wouldn't lie about something like that? After 13 UN resolutions condeming his refusal to disarm...you honestly think he threw those inspectors out so he could comply?

http://www.un.org/Depts/unscom/Chronology/chronologyframe.htm

Hell, it took them until 1995 to even admit that they HAD a biological weapons program.

8 Aug 1995 General Hussein Kamel, Minister of Industry and Minerals and former Director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, with responsibility for all of Iraq's weapons programmes, leaves Iraq for Jordan. Iraq claims that Hussein Kamel had hidden from UNSCOM and the IAEA important information on the prohibited weapons programmes. Iraq withdraws its third biological Full, Final and Complete Disclosure and admits a far more extensive biological warfare programme than previously admitted, including weaponization. Iraq also admits having achieved greater progress in its efforts to indigenously produce long-range missiles than had previously been declared. Iraq provides UNSCOM and the IAEA with large amounts of documentation, hidden on a chicken farm ostensibly by Hussein Kamel, related to its prohibited weapons programmes which subsequently leads to further disclosures by Iraq concerning the production of the nerve agent VX and Iraq's development of a nuclear weapon. Iraq also informs UNSCOM that the deadline to halt its cooperation is withdrawn.

On a chicken Farm...damn...how many of those have we searched for WMD?

[Warriorbird]

Which all would've been solved by finishing the job the first time and not doing brilliant things like leaving the Kurds to die.

The point was that they found missile engines, not missiles... and the UN stressed in that very same article that they hadn't found weapons.

Look, I can even act like a conservative.

The issue is that we did not FIND any weapons of mass destruction when it was declared they were there.

Sort've like a Republican going, "The issue was Clinton lied." rather than the issue was Republicans have to claim to hate oral sex to appease the far right wackos.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Which all would've been solved by finishing the job the first time and not doing brilliant things like leaving the Kurds to die.

The point was that they found missile engines, not missiles... and the UN stressed in that very same article that they hadn't found weapons.

Look, I can even act like a conservative.

The issue is that we did not FIND any weapons of mass destruction when it was declared they were there.

Sort've like a Republican going, "The issue was Clinton lied." rather than the issue was Republicans have to claim to hate oral sex to appease the far right wackos.

A L E R T

A L E R T

SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN!!!!!!!

No real Republican ever claimed they didn't like oral.

FUCKING LYING LIBERAL BITCH!

[Warriorbird]

Of course not. They said, "The issue was Clinton lied." They knew how to play to the wacko Christians without getting slammed and saying it directly. Newt loved them interns too.

[CrystalTears]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Sort've like a Republican going, "The issue was Clinton lied." rather than the issue was Republicans have to claim to hate oral sex to appease the far right wackos.

Not to derail this or anything, but wanted to say that I'm not sure which Republicans you were speaking with, but none of the ones I know gave a rat's ass who he banged or whether he had oral sex or not. It was the fact that he lied under oath.

Fucking fast PB. *mutters*

[Edited on 3/14/2005 by CrystalTears]

[Warriorbird]

Of course. :rolls eyes: You can keep saying that.

[Warriorbird]

The gist of it is that political parties (either one) will attack a President on one issue when the core issue is something else. They can't flat out say something, so they say it another way.

Lying Under Oath (curiously enough, the investigation began LONG before that turned up) vs Blowjobs/Democratic Moral Decay/Lack of Values

No WMD's actually found vs You're a shill for Halliburton and KBR. You arranged this war to distract us from Bin Laden.

[Edited on 3-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Of course. :rolls eyes: You can keep saying that.

Whatever WB. Of course you can keep on believing that the mean old Republicans were picking on poor innocent Billy because he got some action from someone other than his wife. If that makes you sleep better at night.. you feel free.

Truth of the matter is.. he lied under oath. When you finally grasp that FACT, then you can begin the healing process. Until then, you are only fooling yourself.

[Warriorbird]

They were picking on him because they frightened the hell out of him. They went through a bunch of other targets before they finally clued in on him getting head. They recorded as much lurid dimestore porn novel BS as they could to fill the Starr Report.

You of course conveniently forget that bit.

He was addressing questions he never should've.

I'm sorry, like many Republicans, you may actually like sex, but it was a case of "get Clinton anyway possible." In the end all they did is succeed in cheapening the Presidency, because whatever they do, both them and the Democrats will pull the same kind of bullshit. Forever.

You can easily sleep on that, however. Ralph Reed is glad for your support.

For my part I'll continue to appreciate anything they can pin on Bush.

[Edited on 3-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
They were picking on him because they frightened the hell out of him. They went through a bunch of other targets before they finally clued in on him getting head. They recorded as much lurid dimestore porn novel BS as they could to fill the Starr Report.

You of course conveniently forget that bit.

He was addressing questions he never should've.

I'm sorry, like many Republicans, you may actually like sex, but it was a case of "get Clinton anyway possible." In the end all they did is succeed in cheapening the Presidency, because whatever they do, both them and the Democrats will pull the same kind of bullshit. Forever.

You can easily sleep on that, however. Ralph Reed is glad for your support.

For my part I'll continue to appreciate anything they can pin on Bush.

[Edited on 3-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

I actually agree with you that the Republicans were "out to get him". But, the responsibility still lies on his shoulders. He was the President and he was under oath. He lied under oath and then gave very vague answers about word definitions.

[DeV]

Look at what the good old Repub's did to Jack Ryan and his Senate bid after they found out that he and the ex-wife used to be swingers.

It's done wonders for Obama's career so far. See, it's not always bad WB. :)

[Warriorbird]

Thanks DeV. You cheered me up.

[Edited on 3-14-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Goldenranger]

Regarding the Al Samoud missiles that you say are proof of his development of a system of WMD... (from the second article link you gave)

Both the liquid-fueled Al-Samoud -- which was successfully tested by Iraq two years ago -- and the solid-fuel Ababil are technically permitted under U.N. disarmament rules that allow Iraq to develop defensive missiles with a range of less than 150 kilometers, or about 100 miles. But intelligence officials believe Iraq is skirting the U.N. rules and secretly conducting research on missiles capable of reaching more distant targets.

"Baghdad also wants a long-range missile," Robert Walpole, the CIA's strategic and nuclear programs officer, said in testimony before the Senate in March. Even after devastating losses during the Gulf War and Desert Fox, Walpole said, Iraq "has been able to maintain the infrastructure and expertise necessary to develop longer-range systems."


So great, we once again see that they WANT more offensive weapons but that what they HAVE is something the UN and US explicitly allowed... Once again showing that the justifications of this war shifted from the early speeches citing that Iraq had bought uranium from Niger and possibly could launch a nuclear attack on one of our allies to, and I think your words will suit well, ...it's pretty clear that he was still pursuing the development of nuclear weapons, as well as Biological, and Chemical weapon delivery systems.

From mushroom cloud to the PURSUIT of DEVELOPMENT of weapons Oy :banghead:

[Slider]

Well, as long as your going to bring up Clinton....

"In a televised address, Clinton accused Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein of failing to live up to his commitment to allow unrestricted access to U.N. weapons inspectors. "


"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said from the Oval Office. Clinton said he decided weeks ago to give Hussein one last chance to cooperate. But he said U.N. chief weapons inspector Richard Butler reported that Iraq had failed to cooperate -- and had in fact placed new restrictions on weapons inspectors.

BAGHDAD (CNN) -- A second round of explosions were seen and heard over Baghdad at 2:30 a.m. Thursday. The activity occurred shortly after U.S. President Bill Clinton announced he had ordered a "strong, sustained" series of airstrikes on military and security forces in Iraq, designed to degrade Iraq's ability to develop weapons of mass destruction

Huh...well...guess Clinton "lied" about WMD in Iraq too...

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike.03/

[peam]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Warriorbird
I see a Liddy, Hannity, Savage, Coulter ad on the page. Some other verification would be nice.

LMAO

All you need is O'Reilly's big noggin on the page and you'll be able to create the conservative Volton.

You're the Photoshop wiz.

Let's see it.

[Xorai]

Dan Rather's second interview with Saddam. Pretty interesting. Does anyone know if they debated? I don't watch alot of television and mainly read the classifieds in the paper.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/02/26/60II/main542151.shtml


P.S. I am not for, or against the war. I am for my brother and the rest of the military over there risking their lives not just for us, but for people they don't even know.


edited to add a period where a comma was.

[Edited on 3-15-2005 by Spidr]

[Warriorbird]

You missed the real point of my entire discussion, Slider. I think it's highly likely that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (not nuclear, mind, he'd have damn well used it) at one point. The issue that's made is that Bush claimed he did, but he didn't (we didn't find any) because they can't attack him over being a shill for KBR and Halliburton (Democrats have been shills for them too, look at LBJ) or from using the Iraq war to distract us from Bin Laden. Neither of those issues play as well with the American people. The American people need simplified nonsense.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
You missed the real point of my entire discussion, Slider. I think it's highly likely that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (not nuclear, mind, he'd have damn well used it) at one point. The issue that's made is that Bush claimed he did, but he didn't (we didn't find any) because they can't attack him over being a shill for KBR and Halliburton (Democrats have been shills for them too, look at LBJ) or from using the Iraq war to distract us from Bin Laden. Neither of those issues play as well with the American people. The American people need simplified nonsense.

Holy shit.. there's so much fucking worthless spin in there it made me seasick.

So did he have WMDs or didn't he? You said you believe he did, but that Bush had to make it up to go to war? Do you work for the NY Times with that fucked up logic?

I also love how you feel the need to put Haliburton in there again because Dick is the VP and that is the only reason we used that company. NEWSFLASH - Clinton Administration used Haliburton in much the same manner.

[Warriorbird]

You're not grasping it. You're too used to actual spin. I think he probably did have weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological). The Democrats or their strategists are making an issue of not finding any, because they can't make an issue of the KBR/Halliburton bit or using the Iraq war to distract us from Bin Laden.

It all would've been settled by killing him initially.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
It was the fact that he lied under oath.


He shoulda pulled a "W" and demanded there be no recordings or anything that could be used as evidence if the truth turns out to be different then what he's saying.

[Parkbandit]

So you now blame the Iraq war on the Democats?
Your family really is doing a great job on you. I think I'm going to cry.

[Warriorbird]

Not really. I blame Bush 1 mainly, Clinton secondarily. He did some very stupid Iraq/Syria related stuff. Call it the historian in me.

And if you think Cheney is the only Bush connection to KBR/Halliburton/big oil...well... go right ahead.

I believe ONE of the reasons the war was fought was to distract us from Bin Laden.

Also, amusingly enough, Afghanistan doubled the heroin output of the rest of the world last year.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Not really. I blame Bush 1 mainly, Clinton secondarily. He did some very stupid Iraq/Syria related stuff. Call it the historian in me.

And if you think Cheney is the only Bush connection to KBR/Halliburton/big oil...well... go right ahead.

I believe ONE of the reasons the war was fought was to distract us from Bin Laden.

Also, amusingly enough, Afghanistan doubled the heroin output of the rest of the world last year.

Of course you do.

Bush: Dick, we need a distraction! We can't find Bin Laden and I am catching heat for it! HELP!

Dick: Well, my good pals in the oil industry and at Haliburton asked me for a favor... can we invade Iraq?

Bush: Will it be a big enough distraction?

Dick: Yea.. I think I'll tell the military to mess a couple strategies up so that it looks like we bungled it up real bad.. that should get them forgetting all about Bin Laden.

Bush: I am so glad I selected you as my VP. You have the best plans.

[Warriorbird]

Precisely why they attack Bush about the missing WMD. You illustrated my point.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Precisely why they attack Bush about the missing WMD. You illustrated my point.


If I illustrated your point with my very sarcastic and unrealistic 'sketch', there's something very wrong with your point.

[Warriorbird]

Or you're sarcastic and unrealistic.

;)

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Or you're sarcastic and unrealistic.

;) THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY SARCASM!!!!!!!!!

I have honed this skill for 40 years. It's razor sharp.

[Wezas]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I have honed this skill for 40 years. It's razor sharp.

Holy Christ you're old.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Wezas

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I have honed this skill for 40 years. It's razor sharp.

Holy Christ you're old. And you're slipping. Gonna need a cane soon.

[Back]

The WMDs and the connection with Al Queda were both excuses, of many, to execute a plan of American military/corporate global domination. Its no secret. PAX Americana.

Iraq never attacked America, were not a threat to America, and were actually against Al Queda. America invaded a soverign nation without the support of the United Nations and has tossed out the Geneva Convention.

The only reason Al Queda is there now is because America invaded.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
The WMDs and the connection with Al Queda were both excuses, of many, to execute a plan of American military/corporate global domination. Its no secret. PAX Americana.



I'm so disappointed in you. You forgot to use the FACISM moniker you've become so known for.

You are slipping.

GO PAX! DOMINATION OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!

[Warriorbird]

I think I'd support world domination if it got me better gas prices.

[Prestius]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
The WMDs and the connection with Al Queda were both excuses, of many, to execute a plan of American military/corporate global domination. Its no secret. PAX Americana.



I'm so disappointed in you. You forgot to use the FACISM moniker you've become so known for.

You are slipping.

GO PAX! DOMINATION OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!

Ok .. I know this is probably a mistake but ..

PB - your response is indicative of the political discourse in the age of Coulter and Rush. No need to discuss, just toss insulting rhetoric. Just talk about Clinton. Just do anything that demeans, because .. damn it's cool to be acerbic, isn't it? How about some substance, PB?

Look, Pax Americana isn't some tin-foil hat conspiracy theory. Take a look at the PNAC and their stated goals. These are the guys in power and they've been nothing but clear in both words and action.

As to the thread here, exactly what is it going to take? I mean, according to Bush - we invaded Iraq not because Saddam had WMD's - but because he had them and they were AN IMMINENT THREAT to the USA. Go read Bush's speeches. Finding a few weapons that could theorectally be used as WMD make Saddam a bad guy and dangerous, but I'm sorry, it's not enough to send our troops to die over is it? can you be the one that tells a mother that her son died over a few short-range rockets and a overblown ideology put forth by people who dodged any and all previous wars?

I guess my question is, what will it take? What's the straw that will make you say, hey, maybe there was an ulterior motive in Iraq that has ZERO to do with WMD's or 9-11 (remember that?) or al Quaeda. Because ALL the reasons we were given have turned out to be either completely false (read Yellow-cake from Niger), or, if true - nothing close to invasion-worthy data (links between al-Quaeda and Saddam, but operational ones?). WMD's are just one of many reasons they floated. All have turned out to be wrong.

So .. I'm as suprised as you are that this stuff doesn't make the news, Slider. The difference is, with every new revelation I think - why aren't the media jumping all over this - we sent people to DIE over this.

-P

[Edited on 3-16-2005 by Prestius]

[Back]

On a related note, Bush nominated Wolfowitz (http://netscape5.marketwatch.com/news/story.asp?dist=feed&siteid=netscape&guid=%7BDDB2A9 CD%2DFA97%2D4E08%2DABC0%2D8C09AA76A778%7D) to be president of the World Bank.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Prestius

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
The WMDs and the connection with Al Queda were both excuses, of many, to execute a plan of American military/corporate global domination. Its no secret. PAX Americana.



I'm so disappointed in you. You forgot to use the FACISM moniker you've become so known for.

You are slipping.

GO PAX! DOMINATION OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!!

Ok .. I know this is probably a mistake but ..


This was the only thing I agreed with in your post. In fact, you could have left out the word "Probably".

I know, I know.. the US is trying to take over the world. I get it.

You've been watching too many Pinky and the Brain cartoons.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
You've been watching too many Pinky and the Brain cartoons. Pinky and the Brain aka Bush and Cheney.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Parkbandit
You've been watching too many Pinky and the Brain cartoons. Pinky and the Brain aka Bush and Cheney.

Hehe..

[Warriorbird]

If the shoe fits...

Wolfowitz is almost enough of a freak to make me completely back Tamral's views on Isreal. That takes a LOT.