Reply With QuoteBush would probably go to war against Jesus, citing the possibility of Jesus having weapons of mass destruction. And when the weapons inspectors searched Joseph's workshop and found no weapons, Bush would claim that Mary hid them.
You should have acted
Jesus is for videogame censoring too? That Bastard!!Originally Posted by Mman
What de fook is a gamest mook?
Bush would probably go to war against Jesus, citing the possibility of Jesus having weapons of mass destruction. And when the weapons inspectors searched Joseph's workshop and found no weapons, Bush would claim that Mary hid them.
on Fast track Status
I'm going to simplify this in as much as possible for you to understand.
Ready?
the basic fight between these two people and their war records is...
Kerry went to Vietnam.
And Bush did not.
Nothing else that comes up out of this, makes a lick of difference to me. Bush did what all rich kids back in the seventies did, and that was avoid the vietnam war. The end. Everyone who was alive back then knows how and why you went into the national guard.
Please though, lemme sum it up.
Kerry saw war.
Bush did not.
Kerry was affected by war, and fought against that war when he returned home.
Bush spent the time from when he was 17 till 40 in a coked out stupor.
Kerry has made a lot of bad decisions in congress.
Bush has made a lot of bad decisions everywhere.
Kerry will not be the president come Novemeber.
Bush will.
There you go. Happy Yoshi?
Your fake religious, borderline retarded incumbent, is going to win this. So just stop now. Enjoy his complete disregard for you, and your middle to lower class friends. Watch as the word terrorist evolves to encompass, "anyone who doesn't support the US, and be happy as him and Dick Cheney turn around and start wars (but they'll call them, "crusades", cause gosh darn it they ain't nearly religious enough unless we get the Christian God behind us and start killing in everyone's name) with random third world nations, until they finally hit the nuclear jackpot, and we can all burn in a fiery ball of death, because diplomacy in all its forms is weak and useless against every threat we face.
Yay go Republicans, and oil grubbing, fat, millionares.
YAY.
level six laser lotus
Bam.
That's the straight shit, right there.
What the Fonz said!
"Your soul better belong to Jesus, mmm-mmmmm..... cause your ass belongs to me!"
News Flash:
Fighting with Yoshi or Diffx over poilitics is like arguing with a brick wall. Just stop already.
What the Fonz said!
Told ya they'd change the topic.
"Your soul better belong to Jesus, mmm-mmmmm..... cause your ass belongs to me!"
can't wake up
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=dou...t&cop=mss&tab=
Look at the "Also try".
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=idi...=20&fl=0&x=wrt
look at the last "Also try".
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=mor...=20&fl=0&x=wrt
look at the second "Also try".
or bust.
It's not a question of taking sides, it's a question of what's happened. They aren't there. Powell says they'll never be found. So, either:
A) Rather than using his country's only viable defence, paranoid, power hungry Hussein gave away his chemical weapons and decided to hide in a hole and let someone else have his country without a fight,
B) They were actually all destroyed with poor Iraqi record keeping, or
C) The amount left over after the Iran-Iraq war was overestimated in the first place.
If he did have them the current reality of the situation just makes no sense. Why does a guy who doesn't give a fuck about human lives that aren't his own give up his best weapon?
Why on Earth would Syria want them, if they're guaranteed cause for internationally-coordinated invasion?
How does Hussein ship an entire arsenal out of the country under surveillance, with no witnesses, records, or post-takover testimony of any kind?
If they are out there, why have the insurgents not used any? They certainly don't seem to have no qualms about using deadlier weapons, with roughly 65 people dying a day there now. Certainly they've obtained other forms of help from Syria.
I just see no logical reason to believe Hussein did have chemical weapons stockpiles. The entire US case was built on Chalabi's testimony, which has been discredited, and Rumsfeld saying "wait, I sold you more than that 20 years ago."
There was no on-ground US intelligence in Iraq - the one westerner who was there, Blix, said there was no reason to beleive there were any. Nobody ever saw any stockpiles. Nobody ever found a warehouse or bunker with chemical trace elements. No records or facilities concerning their storage, maintenace or production were ever discovered. They haven't been seen used in over a decade. It doesn't even make sense for him to keep making then, since gas attacks disperse uselessly in open desert - they only worked against the Kurds because they were stuck in a valley.
All it comes down to is that I see no rational evidence he still had them, and a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
Probably, but maybe not. Yesterday's national polls:
Registered Voters - Bush: 44% Kerry 46%
Likely Voters - Bush 47% Kerry 47%
The convention bounce is over. But I think the only thing that can beat Bush now is the rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq. If they aren't officially in a state of civil war yet they're damn close, with real threat of elections being called off. That's not cool.
-Kyo
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks