the new Pearl Harbor, exposed!

[Mylezylez]

pilger.carlton.com/print/124759

Enough said.

-Miles
________
Chevrolet beat wiki (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Beat)

[Mylezylez]

I thought it was relevant at l, since exactly what Rumsfeld, Cheney, and the others have wanted for years is finally coming true: A continuing war with Iraq.
________
Michigan Dispensaries (http://michigan.dispensaries.org/)

[Mylezylez]

Does anybody out there care that this coming war in Iraq has been planned for over a decade? The Bush administration is using September 11th, and the War on SOME Terrorists to carry out a plan who's ultimate goal is as of yet unrevealed (although many of us have hypotheses).

-Miles
________
ZOLOFT PROBLEMS (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/zoloft/)

[Not worried]

If this had come from someplace credible, then maybe people would be worried.

However, given the source, there are lots of other things to be worried about like alien abductions, asteroids headed our way, and the mind control rays that are bng shot at us. Everything is a conspiracy, I tell ya!

No matter how many times you keep adding to this thread to get it to the top of the forum, at best you can hope to get some of the other irrational Bush-haters to chime in with support.

Perhaps you ought to adjust your tin foil hat.

[Mylezylez]

I saw no mention of UFOs, or any other "crazy" conspiracy theory. What I did read, I have heard from numerous other sources as well.

Are you saying you don't believe that various "Hawks", currently in the Bush administration have been planning to re-ignite the war with Iraq for years?

-Miles
________
LovelyWendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[michaelsavage]

Miles, you are another liberal moron! Leave this post! Did you have a problem when Clinton was bombing Iraq? Or Serbia? Were you stripping and shouting "Books not Bombs?"

Leave the Republican post, and form "The Human Shield Post."
________
VOLCANO VAPORIZERS (http://volcanovaporizer.net/)

[Mylezylez]

As kind as your words were, I do take issue with your assuming I supported Clinton's bombing of Iraq.

I think if I were to invent a hostility meter, many of the responders to my posts on this board would be at about an angry 8, while I still just want to DISCUSS issues at the hostility level of about 4.

As long as there are people who make unsupported, emotional, and irrational statements like that, there can never be any civilized debate in this country.

But since you made the comments you did, can I assume you DISAGREE with the article I originally posted?

Thoughts?

-Miles
________
Lovely Wendie (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[Skeptic]

Miles, the way you have now been exposed in the "Bush' War" thread, no one should ever take you seriously again.

You like saying things like, "As long as there are people who make unsupported, emotional, and irrational statements like that, there can never be any civilized debate in this country." But, in that other thread you totally misrepresented, in a highly accusatory tone, the very words of the article you pointed to.

Your anti-American, anti-Bush rantings have finally caught up with you and you have exposed yourself to be a fraud - you ask for thoughts with no intention of real discussion.
________
vapir no2 vaporizer (http://vaporizers.net/no2-vaporizer/)

[Mylezylez]

I'm sorry. Perhaps I was a little bit overzealous, but I don't think that slight hyperbole qualifies me as a lunatic. After all, whatever the ridiculousness on this message board, I still have a job, still have a life, and I can assure you I am quite sane (as much as one can be).

The level of hostility I am shown on this board continually baffles me. I don't find any of the articles I post to be erroneous, or else I probably wouldn't post them.

And I don't think the point about "blatantly lying" is entirely invalid, since the United States and Britain made a majority of thr case against Iraq on the basis on those reports (falsely detailing Iraq's nuclear programs). Now that those reports have been invalidated, no change has been made to Bush's plans for war. How do they justify this?

Saddam is dismantling the missiles that had a slightly larger firing radius than allowed by UN sanctions. What does Bush's "disarm" command mean, if the US doesn't give Iraq any grounds on which to do it, and provides phony reports (whether of not they fabricated it does not matter) as evidence that Iraq is not complying.

The UN inspectors found no evidence of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons in Iraq at this time.

It seems that the argument for war has been reduced to Saddam's record as a dictator. But if you take into account the United States' involvement in many of Saddam's more nefarious deeds, you might agree that the US is not entitled to wage such a destructive war against Iraq.

I really do enjoy these debates, and look forward to your responses.

-Miles
________
Wendie 99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[Suzie Q]

I hope I am not interupting but I would like to make my unsophisticated thoughts heard on the subject of why we are going into Iraq. Then you can both trash me. I believe our government forsaw the threats of world domination by the Muslim's years ago. The Muslim religion and the Catholic religion's agenda is that they both want to create a world that is ther all Catholic or all Muslim. The Church would like to once again revive the Holy Roman Empire. The Muslim's of course see this as a threat. Where does that leave Israel? Our government sees this as a disaster waiting to happen that has to be reckoned with. Bush's goal, I believe, is not oil, but to create a stronghold of Democracy and sanity in at l one country and use this as a model to perhaps diffuse the tension in the Middle . He is trying to bring the Muslim countries into the 21st Century. The leaders in these countries have lots of money from the oil deposits but they are still very primitive in thr thinking. Perhaps there is some truth in what has been said previously that the administrations have been waiting for an excuse to go in and try to change the countries into something that will be less hostile toward us and Israel. Okay, I am ready to take the hit for my naviete.

[Fed Up]

With all due respect, you cannot see things clearly if you elect to be blind. You totally ignore the fact that thousands of pounds of chemical and biological weapons have disappeared in Iraq, and have yet to be accounted for. You ignore the fact that Iraq has had 12 yrs. to disarm and has not done so. You ignore the fact that Hussn has used chemical weapons on the Kurds in his own country, then threatens to use them against our troops after he says they don't exist. You ignore the fact that dissidents are tortured and beheaded on a routine basis. You ignore the fact that Iraq started a war with Iran, then invaded Kuwait, where they murdered, raped, looted and pillaged. The truth of the matter is that you ignore anything that remotely suggests war is necessary to save lives in the future. This is purely selective thinking on your part. I'm sure your thoughts about war are well intentioned, however misguided they may be. Hell, even that liberal rag Newsday thinks it is time to go to war with Iraq. Isn't that a clue that you may be wrong here?
________
buy aromed vaporizer (http://www.vaporshop.com/aromed-vaporizer.html)

[Mylezylez]

Well, not to continually push this one point, but those chemical weapons that Saddam used on "his own people" were purchased from American weapons manufacturers, during thr war with Iran. When the Kurds in Northern Iraq presented a threat, Saddam used those weapons on them. The United States was temporarily allied with Iraq at the time, and covered for these atrocities for political convenience. These are all well documented events.

But how hasn't Saddam disarmed? So far, there has been no proof, and very unreliable evidence that Iraq is harboring any of those dastardly "weapons of mass destruction".

The very nature of the US's crazy "Shock and Awe" military plan pretty much negates the possibility that the US is trying to help the people of Iraq. Baghdad is an enormous, and densely populated city, and over 2000 bombs are going to be dropped on it. But I suppose only the BAD Iraqis will die. And we're not talking about light civilian casualties. Hundreds of thousands (100k - 500k estimated, depending on the source) of Iraqi civilians died as "collateral damage" in the last war.

________
PRILOSEC HELP (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/prilosec/)

[Skeptic]

Miles, quoted from 3/2/03, Republican Forum, Hussn Interview thread: "Well, since I'm apparently bng grilled on this issue, I believe Mr. Blix has stated that there are unaccounted for weapons in Iraq."

Miles here, on 3/10/03: "So far, there has been no proof, and very unreliable evidence that Iraq is harboring any of those dastardly "weapons of mass destruction"."

You are absolutely amazing, Miles. You can't even remember what you YOURSELF have said. Now you're disagreng with yourself. Amazing. Do you see why people have trouble taking you seriously?

________
e cigarette (http://vaporshop.com)

[Fed Up]

I'm not at all sure our country supplied them, but I fail to see what difference it makes WHERE the chemical weapons came from. The fact of the matter is that Sadaam has shown he will use them. You want proof he has them? What do you want him to do unleash them for you? Mr. Blix and company were sent to Iraq for one purpose: To determine whether or not Iraq is complying with UN resolution 1441. He is not. Blix was not sent there on a hide and seek mission to try and find these weapons. The mere fact that Iraq has failed to provide documentation as to where these weapons went, and thr continued refusal to allow scientists to be interviewed outside Iraq is further proof of deception. In fact, we may never find those weapons, but I think once the Iraqi's are liberated they will show us where they were hidden. When that happens Milez, will you make an apology here for your support of Iraq? Also, as far as the "shock and awe" military strategy, it worked in the first gulf war, and caused thousands of Iraqi soldiers to throw down thr arms and surrender. If it can work again it will ultimately save the lives of many of our soldiers (and also many of the Iraqis you care so dearly about) Lets clarify something here...You DO care about our soldiers, don't you?
________
ducati 996 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Ducati_996)

[Mylezylez]

The subtextual reason for America's impending bombing of Iraqi cities seems to be that Saddam is imminently able and willing to launch nuclear, bio, or chemical weapons upon the United States. The rationale for this conclusion is "Saddam Hussn used weapons of mass destruction on his own people."

But we as intelligent people have to analyze these assumptions more carefully. "His own people" were the Kurds, one of many religious factions fighting for power in Iraq. The western concept of regionally defined nations really doesn't fit in with the nomadic history of the middle . This is of course not DEFENDING Saddam's chemical weapon actions (as the United States did immediately following), but it's important to get the facts behind the rhetoric.

As for our imminent nuclear attack, I think it's been made painfully obvious that Saddam doesn't have the capability (and doesn't even seem to have the desire) to launch an attack of any sort against the US.

I just urge everyone to find out the hows, whens, and whys of these issues. I'm not claiming it'll change your mind, but it's very much more complicated than the Bush administration would have you believe.

-Miles
________
HURT FROM WELLBUTRIN (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/wellbutrin/)

[Martlet]

You realize of course that MyLezylez stating he believes Hans Blix made a statement about WMD...and his stating there is no proof is a perfectly valid statement.

Something Hans Blix says does not automatically mean there is proof to back it up. He can say, "I think Iraq is hiding weapons." That is not proof. Proof would be an arsenal.

I did not have the pleasure of reading the quote you keep referring to from ol' Hans...but was it in an official report? An interview? It seems to me...Hans Blix is not omniscent and factual evidence does not fall from his lips. I think it can be safely assumed there is nothing to "expose" with Mylezylez. I think rather, you are overinterpreting and confusing his logic to fit some wrd mold of a Liberal.

Why don't you stop your little witchhunt and get back to debating the topic at hand? Thanks.

[Martlet]

There is a UN inspections team for nuclear weapons along with Hans Blix's chemical/bio team. The nuclear weapons team announced this week that Iraq has no nuclear weapons...nor is he able to produce them. So, I guess we only have to worry about the chemical/bio weapons really.

Hans Blix has said if Iraq does have bio weapons they are from the early 90's. According to Blix, most of the payload would be useless by now.

So when we all start shaking in our boots over these WMD...just ask yourself how much you actually know, and how much are you bng told.