Comments on: Chemical Agents Found Near U.N. HQ

Potentially Dangerous Chemicals Removed From Iraq A Decade Ago Found At U.N. Office In NYC

[nggr]

I don''''t believe any country should stand by and watch while another country is being butchered by a dictator.
Posted by erasmus6 at 07:22 PM : Aug 30, 2007

agreed. but i was wondering if we agreed on the lengths a country should go to stop this.
libslovesuvs brought up darfur, i dont think an invasion of that country would be prudent, as i didn''t think an invasion of iraq was prudent under the same pre-text.
what do you think?

[nggr]

the ''''pre-text'''' to this war is no secret nor concieved in conspiracy
Posted by libsluvsuvs at 07:08 PM : Aug 30, 2007

by the way, this should read "pre-texts"

also, conservatives love suv''s too. and conservatives can also be concserned about the enviornment too.
i dont see how your moniker raises a point or makes a statement.
if its hypocrisy, well there is plenty to go around.
how about consluvscrewingkids
or conswageholywars

[erasmus6]

nggr

Actually what you said was:"the stalling of inspectors had to "alarm" you, because this is the basis for an invasion to you." posted at 6:16.

And what I meant to say was that I never once thought of that as a basis for invasion.

And if you really want to know what I think go to the POLITICS site and click on "Bush Warns Against Withdrawing Forces".

I don''t for one minute think that the American forces should have to be the ones that have to die, but remember it is the U.S. that started this war.

I don''t believe any country should stand by and watch while another country is being butchered by a dictator.

[toolmangler-2009]

"There is no threat that these items currently or in the past have posed to public health and safety in the area," Casey said.

White House press secretary Tony Snow said the chemical agents "were brought over as a result of U.N. weapons inspections during the UNMOVIC era" and had been at the UNMOVIC facility for over a decade."
===============



This is "much ado about nothing" in the strictest sense of the word.

erasmus6; I see that you have been into your dictionary and thesaurus again but I am not impressed with your newfound ability to insult and issue personal attacks and degrading language. Do not worry, the USA has no intentions of invading Canada. You are proof that Canada has nothing that we want. (see, I did not use a single vulgar word and my insults were only implied) If you wish to continue in that vein feel free to do so. (No! feely1, I didn''t call your name).. ;)

[nggr]

after afghanistan,
Posted by libsluvsuvs at 07:08 PM : Aug 30, 2007

i didn''t realize we had wrapped that one up! good!


he has the infrastructure, he has the military resources and HE HAS THE DESIRE to assist these terrorists NOT BECAUSE HE WANTS TO BE BUDDIES but because they share a common enemy.
Posted by libsluvsuvs at 07:08 PM : Aug 30, 2007

again, i would like to see the evidence that he was an immenent threat. and now, since you mention it, i would like to see some evidence that he was so willing to work with terrorists.


when we all know that our military both in afghanistan and Iraq are bogged down DUE to your interest in protecting the rights of these terrorists
Posted by libsluvsuvs at 07:08 PM : Aug 30, 2007

i hope you aren''t a terrorist because its your rights i''m worried about. nit the terrorists. they can die horribly. have you seen some of the laws that are being passed since this began? without this kill or be killed rational the bush administration has conjured up, none of these laws
would have been possible.
all i''m doing is questioning. Who has the authority here? who should we we afraid of?
i can support any number of reasonable rationales, because i''m not a talking hack for a party.
I''m more scared of an intrest party tricking the american people into voting one of their cronies in as president in order to further their agenda than i am of the terrorists.

[libsluvsuvs]

Posted by nggr at 06:55 PM : Aug 30, 2007
+ report abuse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

****

oh come on its pretty much the same scenario when it comes to durfur..which most anti-war advocates seems to agree that we should send in our military.

the ''pre-text'' to this war is no secret nor concieved in conspiracy. To start, both the DNC and the GOP were looking at the same battleplan and the same reasoning (which I may add is correct) and agreed to it. after afghanistan, we were under a mode in which we are PROACTIVE instead of REACTIVE. Saddam was the most imminent threat at the time because he has the infrastructure, he has the military resources and HE HAS THE DESIRE to assist these terrorists NOT BECAUSE HE WANTS TO BE BUDDIES but because they share a common enemy.
It is funny that you can mention military and human rights in a same sentence when we all know that our military both in afghanistan and Iraq are bogged down DUE to your interest in protecting the rights of these terrorists. I dont know if you can conduct a war against people who uses UNCONVENTIONAL methods of warfare without violating thier rights! this is war..dont tell me we were pre-occupied with violating the rights of the third reich???
protecting our resoruces so YOU CAN ENJOY THAT AMERICAN LIFESTYLE is worth the fight..

[nggr]

"stalling had nothing to do with the invasion."

NEVER SAID IT DID!
Posted by erasmus6 at 06:47 PM : Aug 30, 2007

did i type this?
where did i say this? i cant find it.

[nggr]

Oh and one other thing. I supported the war for one reason only. TO STOP SADDAM FROM TORTURING AND BUTCHERING HIS PEOPLE.

Posted by erasmus6 at 06:47 PM : Aug 30, 2007

O.K.
so you support a policy that the U.S. intervenes in the affairs of foreign governments based on how they treat their people. i can see that.
are you in the military to back up your convictions?

do you agree with bushes pre-text for this war?
do you agree with the removal of assets from afganistan to iraq, taking the militarys eye off of the terroism target and putting it on a human rights agenda?
whats more important, what serves AMERICA or what serves your opinion of how our soldiers should die?

[erasmus6]

j-whitman

You wouldn''t know facts if they hit you in the frickin'' head.

[nggr]

And I never once said anything about him wanting to use them on the U.S. You seem to want to read more into my post than there actually was.
Posted by erasmus6 at 06:26 PM : Aug 30, 2007

no, I said that your position begged that inference. because without it, well then, saddam isn''t an immediate threat to our national security, and therefore, there is no justification for war on these grounds.
although i dont understand how you can support the war but not believe saddam would take action against the U.S., I did cite your rejection of that assumption.
so nah

just kidding

[erasmus6]

nggr

"stalling had nothing to do with the invasion."

NEVER SAID IT DID!

"...you think that Saddam stalling inspectors is a justification for an invasion..."

I NEVER once said that! Again if you actually read my post all I said was that he stalled long enough to move any weapons if he had them. THAT''S IT!

I also never even remotely suggested that they were a threat to the national security of the United States. You are just making this up as you go along. Do you have a mental problem?

The only thing I said was that if they had WMDs that because of all the stalling of the inspectors, they had more than enough time to move them. You and several other seem bent on putting words in my mouth. AGAIN, I wonder why? It shows more about YOUR obsession than anything else.

Oh and one other thing. I supported the war for one reason only. TO STOP SADDAM FROM TORTURING AND BUTCHERING HIS PEOPLE.

[nggr]

Posted by erasmus6 at 06:26 PM : Aug 30, 2007

out of all the points i make the only thing you can address is a term that i used to describe my perception of your argument about saddam hussein and his weapons of mass destruction?
well you might not think so, but it seems to me that
if you make a claim that goes against the evidence that is paranoia.
you cite it over and over, constantly bringing it up. so i could be wrong by using that word, but i''ll assume you think i''m right about the substance of my real argument.

also, it was not my intention to imply that you thought saddam was stupid. that remark was refering to yhe points that followed it, not as an assault on your opinion of saddam.

[erasmus6]

nggr

"the paranoia that you exhibit about Saddam and his weapons...?

Paranoia? Where do you get paranoia? And I never once said anything about him wanting to use them on the U.S. You seem to want to read more into my post than there actually was.

"...as disgusting as Saddam was, he was not a stupid man..."

Now if you were to go back and actually READ my original post you would see that is exactly what I was saying. HE WAS NOT A STUPID MAN. But for some reason you and a couple of other dumbf_cks seem to what to make it about something else. I wonder why that is?

[nggr]

that publish buttons a b*tch isn''t it!

[nggr]

What is the U.N. hiding from us and the world?
Posted by SlipSter01 at 06:18 PM : Aug 30, 2007

this is a good point

[slipster01]

BIG QUESTION.

Where has it ever been approved for the U.N. to transport chemical weapons material INTO the United States without our being told about it?

What else is the U.N. keeping in hiding in New York City that we Americans do not know about? High explosive? Radioactive material? Actual nuclear devices?

What is the U.N. hiding from us and the world?

[slipster01]

BIG QUESTION.

Where has it ever been approved for the U.N. to transport chemical weapons material INTO the United States without our being told about it?

What else is the U.N. keeping in hiding in New York City that we Americans do not know about? High explosive? Radioactive material? Actual nuclear devices?

What is the U.N. hiding from us and the world?

[slipster01]

BIG QUESTION.

Where has it ever been approved for the U.N. to transport chemical weapons material INTO the United States without our being told about it?

What else is the U.N. keeping in hiding in New York City that we Americans do not know about? High explosive? Radioactive material? Actual nuclear devices?

What is the U.N. hiding from us and the world?

[slipster01]

BIG QUESTION.

Where has it ever been approved for the U.N. to transport chemical weapons material INTO the United States without our being told about it?

What else is the U.N. keeping in hiding in New York City that we Americans do not know about? High explosive? Radioactive material? Actual nuclear devices?

What is the U.N. hiding from us and the world?

[slipster01]

BIG QUESTION.

Where has it ever been approved for the U.N. to transport chemical weapons material INTO the United States without our being told about it?

What else is the U.N. keeping in hiding in New York City that we Americans do not know about? High explosive? Radioactive material? Actual nuclear devices?

What is the U.N. hiding from us and the world?