View Full Version : Fallujah
w0aew
11-10-2005, 01:13 AM
In November, 2004, the US military used WP in its attack on Fallujah:
Quote[/b] ] Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.
So, what's the big deal you ask?
Quote[/b] ]But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.
In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.
"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."
The full story is here. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece)
The video that is presented as evidence can be viewed here. (http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/body.asp) I downloaded (rather than viewed online) the English version. About 18 minutes into the video, soldiers describe in some detail how WP was used. You can also see the melted corpses.
kc7jty
11-10-2005, 02:30 AM
Its OK...we're the GOOD guys.
We can sodomize the prisoners too if its in the name of God.
k4kyv
11-10-2005, 02:38 AM
Where there's smoke, is there fire?
http://news.google.com/news?hl....l+%2Bus (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=phosphorus+%2Bchemical+%2Bus)
W5MEJ
11-10-2005, 02:58 AM
WP is not classified as a chemical weapon.
From a description of WP munitions at www.globalsecurity.org:
Quote[/b] ]White phosphorus is not banned by any treaty. The United States retains its ability to employ incendiaries to hold high-priority military targets at risk in a manner consistent with the principle of proportionality that governs the use of all weapons under existing law. The use of white phosphorus or fuel air explosives are not prohibited or restricted by Protocol II of the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention (CCWC), the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects .
Chuck
N4AUD
11-10-2005, 03:49 AM
You said it before I could. It's an incendiary not a chemical weapon. If you've seen "We Were Soldiers Once" there's a scene where one of the GI's has phosphorus on his face and the other guy cuts it out with a bayonet.
It's a very effective weapon. It also comes in a handy hand grenade package.
k6bbc
11-10-2005, 04:17 AM
I think we might need a good PR firm to rebuild our image after Bush’s term is up.
KC2ESD
11-10-2005, 04:50 AM
Tell the Terrorists to keep it up and we will drop more WP. We should show no fear or reserve to the terrorists, just a kick butt attitude untill they give up.
Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Nov. 10 2005,05:17)]I think we might need a good PR firm to rebuild our image after Bush’s term is up.
We might just need more then just one firm. It will take years to recover from Bush.
My God, The harm he has done is unimagineable!!
Yet it continues.........
Everyone that voted for him a second time should well be ashamed!!
Gordon
kf6rdn
11-10-2005, 05:33 AM
Much as I can't stand bush, I don't see the outrage. burned or blown up or full of holes, yeah I am sure it hurts what's the difference? Aside from the civilian aspect, but I am making the assumption the press MAY be hyping the "dropped on civvies" bit.
KG4CGC
11-10-2005, 06:37 AM
Are we still dipping bullets in pork fat?
Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ Nov. 09 2005,00:37)]Are we still dipping bullets in pork fat?
Nope, just rubbing em on a bit of bacon now I'm afraid. Oh and BTW, sweet avatar Charles! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
KE7DFP
11-10-2005, 07:33 AM
B-52s, carpet bombing payloads of piglets, from an altitude of 20,000. Might be more agreeable to the geneva folks, and I think it would really scare the hell out of the Jihadists. They can't enter heaven drenched in pig fat.
Quote[/b] (KE7DFP @ Nov. 09 2005,01:33)]B-52s, carpet bombing payloads of piglets, from an altitude of 20,000. #Might be more agreeable to the geneva folks, and I think it would really scare the hell out of the Jihadists. #They can't enter heaven drenched in pig fat.
The band or the aircraft?
KI4BNC
11-10-2005, 07:41 AM
Quote[/b] (KE7DFP @ Nov. 10 2005,00:33)]B-52s, carpet bombing payloads of piglets, from an altitude of 20,000. #Might be more agreeable to the geneva folks, and I think it would really scare the hell out of the Jihadists. #They can't enter heaven drenched in pig fat.
I agree.
BUT...(there always is one)
the aclu would scream to high heaven about it.
have they evolved to mad pig disease yet?
it would validate it...
you know,thinning the herd?
on both sides.the infected piglets and the jihadists?
I feel a plan forming...
lets see,airplane+piglets= no
won't work.don't know a pilot,can't raise pigs,plane fuel
costs too much.(saving some trouble for someone else
by shooting holes in my own theories)
but if you could get the military to agree to it-
ya got my vote.
# # # # # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
KG4CGC
11-10-2005, 07:45 AM
Quote[/b] (ku4my @ Nov. 10 2005,02:22)]Quote[/b] (KG4CGC @ Nov. 09 2005,00:37)]Are we still dipping bullets in pork fat?
Nope, just rubbing em on a bit of bacon now I'm afraid. Oh and BTW, sweet avatar Charles! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
You a Sid Ian fan too?
KC2KFC
11-10-2005, 09:35 AM
Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ Nov. 09 2005,18:13)]In November, 2004, the US military used WP in its attack on Fallujah:
Quote[/b] ] Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.
Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.
So, what's the big deal you ask?
Quote[/b] ]But now new information has surfaced, including hideous photographs and videos and interviews with American soldiers who took part in the Fallujah attack, which provides graphic proof that phosphorus shells were widely deployed in the city as a weapon.
In a documentary to be broadcast by RAI, the Italian state broadcaster, this morning, a former American soldier who fought at Fallujah says: "I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it's known as Willy Pete.
"Phosphorus burns bodies, in fact it melts the flesh all the way down to the bone ... I saw the burned bodies of women and children. Phosphorus explodes and forms a cloud. Anyone within a radius of 150 metres is done for."
The full story is here. (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article325560.ece)
The video that is presented as evidence can be viewed here. (http://www.rainews24.rai.it/ran24/inchiesta/body.asp) I downloaded (rather than viewed online) the English version. About 18 minutes into the video, soldiers describe in some detail how WP was used. You can also see the melted corpses.
The U.S. has been using "Willie Pete" for years. Good spin from the Independent.
W1SMC
11-10-2005, 10:31 AM
I laugh sooooooo hard when I read posts like this.
It verifies my understanding of the commie / socialist / liberal mentality as completely moronic.
You socialists have done more harm to this country than 1000 GWB's could ever do.
War is hell ...... but liberalism is just pure crap!
Semper Fi
What!?!?! I didn't know napalm was somehow proscribed. I love the smell of napalm in the morning.
What does this other stuff smell like?
NEWSFLASH!
ALL explosives are made of chemical compunds and are thus chemical weapons. White Phosphorus isn't even in the same class as the REAL chemical weapons Saddam used on the Kurds and Iranians. Where was you're righteous indignation when that was going on?
The left in this country are in dire need of some counseling for this self hatred syndrome they've got going.
As for feeling ashamed of voting for Bush, I'd do it again in a heartbeat if it would would make one liberal sit in the corner and sob and cry uncontrollably "Oh, woe be to us" and post this type of ignorance. The more people that see it the better we do.
w5klb
11-10-2005, 02:17 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Nov. 10 2005,06:35)]NEWSFLASH!
ALL explosives are made of chemical compunds and are thus chemical weapons. White Phosphorus isn't even in the same class as the REAL chemical weapons Saddam used on the Kurds and Iranians. Where was you're righteous indignation when that was going on?
The left in this country are in dire need of some counseling for this self hatred syndrome they've got going.
As for feeling ashamed of voting for Bush, I'd do it again in a heartbeat if it would would make one liberal sit in the corner and sob and cry uncontrollably "Oh, woe be to us" and post this type of ignorance. The more people that see it the better we do.
Thank you, AC0H for posting that. I was going to but you posted better that I could.
In the military world, the nickname for this stuff is "Willie P". We have been using it for YEARS.
I see this is just more propaganda to try to "convince" the uninformed on how "evil" this Administration has been. Nice try but, like most of the failed "policies" of the left, it's not working.
But at least it's "fresh propaganda". http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
W5MEJ
11-10-2005, 02:52 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Nov. 10 2005,07:35)]NEWSFLASH!
ALL explosives are made of chemical compunds and are thus chemical weapons.
I agree with most of your post, 0H, but with this statement you are making the same error that the "Independent" made. #When dealing with military subjects, you have to use military definitions.
"Chemical compounds" are not automatically considered "chemical weapons".
"Chemical agents" are considered chemical weapons. #The Military defines chemical agents this way:
Quote[/b] ]chemical agent — a chemical substance that is intended
for use in military operations to kill, seriously injure,
or incapacitate people through its physiological effects.
Excluded from consideration are riot control
agents, chemical herbicides, and smoke and flame
materials. Included are blood, nerve, choking, blister,
and incapacitating agents.
Note the exclusion of "smoke and flame" materials. #That is the classification that WP falls into.
Quote[/b] ]Chemical compounds" are not automatically considered "chemical weapons
Yes, I knew this.
I was trying to make the point that almost any weapon system could be considered, by simpletons, "Chemical Weapons" because they use or are made of chemicals.
The cartridges used in soldiers rifles use chemicals as propellants, gunpowder. Without those chemicals the cartridge is a paperweight. Does that make rifle cartridges "chemical weapons". Of course not, unless your trying your damndest to find an excuse to take a swipe at this countries military and political leadership.
KD6NIG
11-10-2005, 03:26 PM
By the way, I also appreciate everyone coming on here and bashing our military, who is doing a job that I wouldn't want to do, about what is viewed as an inhumane weapon.
If thats the case, why aren't we also blaming the ENEMY for doing the same stuff? Its awful funny how WE must "rise above" and abide by all of the rules of "decency" yet our guys get hit with stuff every day that is on the so-called "banned" list of weaponry. Its no wonder why they keep at it-they know we won't take that step. So, basically, we're fighting with one hand tied behind our backs anyway.
I understand you wanting to come on here and bash Bush all the time, and I understand that if we DID use something we shouldn't and agreed to that it would be wrong, but how about a little bashing of those who choose not to play by the 'rules'?
Perhaps a new rule needs to be placed into the war rulebook-If you're fighting an enemy that doesn't want to play by the rules, this is fine-but if you CAPTURE (meaning you didn't make it yourself, you CAPTURED IT) weapons on the so-called ban list that were staged and ready to be used against you, that you have the right to take those weapons and use them yourself.
Bash me all you want, because you KNOW that the other side does this all the time. Doesn't make it right, but its also not right to have to fight by rules that the other side isn't going to use, and having to watch your people be affected by that rulebreaking and you CANNOT do anything about it is also a massive load of Bravo Sierra!
w0aew
11-10-2005, 03:55 PM
Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 10 2005,08:26)]Bash me all you want, because you KNOW that the other side does this all the time. Doesn't make it right, but its also not right to have to fight by rules that the other side isn't going to use, and having to watch your people be affected by that rulebreaking and you CANNOT do anything about it is also a massive load of Bravo Sierra!
Ah, now I get it. They kill innocent civilians so we can, too. They torture contractors by cutting off heads, so we carmelize their women and children while trying to hit their combatants.
Okay, got it. Check.
But all that begs the question of why we invaded Iraq to begin with. When I say "we," of course, I mean the U.S. I had nothing to do with it other than being an unwilling tax contributor.
The liberals in the middle eastern countries--by liberal I refer to their educated, more worldly, less fundamentalist-minded citizens--are appalled by the behavior of their conservative, head-in-the-sand cultural jingoists. And the liberals in the west--by liberal I refer to our educated, more worldly, less fundamentalist-minded citizens--are appalled by the behavior of our conservative, head-in-the-sand cultural jingoists.
Wouldn't it be great if we could create some uninhabited area where all these hard-heads could fight one another to extinction and leave the rest of us alone?
Just sayin'.
KD6NIG
11-10-2005, 04:23 PM
Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ Nov. 10 2005,08:55)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 10 2005,08:26)]Bash me all you want, because you KNOW that the other side does this all the time. #Doesn't make it right, but its also not right to have to fight by rules that the other side isn't going to use, and having to watch your people be affected by that rulebreaking and you CANNOT do anything about it is also a massive load of Bravo Sierra!
Ah, now I get it. They kill innocent civilians so we can, too. They torture contractors by cutting off heads, so we carmelize their women and children while trying to hit their combatants.
Okay, got it. Check.
But all that begs the question of why we invaded Iraq to begin with. When I say "we," of course, I mean the U.S. I had nothing to do with it other than being an unwilling tax contributor.
The liberals in the middle eastern countries--by liberal I refer to their educated, more worldly, less fundamentalist-minded citizens--are appalled by the behavior of their conservative, head-in-the-sand cultural jingoists. And the liberals in the west--by liberal I refer to our educated, more worldly, less fundamentalist-minded citizens--are appalled by the behavior of our conservative, head-in-the-sand cultural jingoists.
Wouldn't it be great if we could create some uninhabited area where all these hard-heads could fight one another to extinction and leave the rest of us alone?
Just sayin'.
I only mentioned the rules as applied to weaponry, which I believe is the topic of this thread.
However, as usual, I have forgotton the first rule of QRZ-state plainly what you mean, lest it be twisted into something that you did not mean.
My refrence to the rules being broken had to do with the use of 'illegal' or 'immoral' weaponry, nothing more.
But, since you decided to open the can of worms, then wouldn't you agree that anyone who is against what our men and women are doing over there is then in support of the regime that was in place over there?
And if this is the case, then you also endorse what those people did over there, which is exactly what you stated I was supporting?
Probably not, but isn't it convinent when people can spin when it is in thier favor, but you can't spin back on them when it isn't?
I mean, logically, if I say that by fighting fire with fire I'm endorsing thier practices, then by not fighting said fire and being against fighting said fire, isn't than an endorsement of what they were doing and are still doing now?
Just wondering http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
So the way I see it, we have a few choices here:
1) Fight fire with fire, which means stooping to thier level, which is wrong.
2) Continue to fight the way we are, with a good portion of the people not backing our troops over there, which is wrong.
3) Kept our nose out of it, which is what many people are saying is what we should do, but by doing so then the killing and other crimes against people in that area would continue, which is wrong.
So which do we choose? #Damned if we do, damned if we don't. #I guess thats what happens when we're chosen to be the ones fighting for what we view is right, but yet, a good portion of the world seems to think what is right to us is wrong to them.
So I guess there isn't any correct answer, and no matter what we do or did, we're always wrong.
Do I endorse what Bush did? #Yes, if the intent was to stop people from being harmed by the government that should have been there to protect them. #No, if the intent was something other than this.
Is the way we have to do it proper? #No, war isn't proper, I don't like seeing our military having to go into harms way. #However, Yes, because thats the way it has to be done, yelling "STOP!" at them will not stop it either.
We're damned either way, aren't we?
So there are 2 sides currently. #You either support the war, support the troops (which, to me you HAVE TO tie together-If you support our troops you either support them FULLY, or you aren't properly, at least to me!) or you don't support the war, which is an indirect endorsement of the prior regime, and of those fighting against us.
Heck of a choice to have to make, isn't it?
w4ass
11-10-2005, 04:32 PM
Quote[/b] (k1alk @ Nov. 09 2005,23:49)]You said it before I could. #It's an incendiary not a chemical weapon. #If you've seen "We Were Soldiers Once" there's a scene where one of the GI's has phosphorus on his face and the other guy cuts it out with a bayonet.
It's a very effective weapon. #It also comes in a handy hand grenade package.
ditto ,should of done this day 1
Quote[/b] ]And the liberals in the west--by liberal I refer to our educated, more worldly, less fundamentalist-minded citizens--are appalled by the behavior of our conservative, head-in-the-sand cultural jingoists.
An opinion not bourne out by fact.
When is the last time the party of the so-called "educated, more worldly, less-fundamentalist-minded citizens" won an national election? How long has it been since said party controlled BOTH houses of congress and the presidency?
You're outnumbered and swinging so far left that Hillary Clinton, who by the by voted for the war, seems reasonable.
KE7DFP
11-10-2005, 05:07 PM
I'm sure geneva-legal phosphorus hurts quite a bit. I'm also sure sharpnel tearing through our brave soldiers limbs hurts quit a bit. S-oo-o-o- #What's you point OES? #As far as your "the more enlightened, educated, liberal" Construct of the issue. #Don't the same people we are fighting run "the more enlightened, educated, liberals" through wood chippers? #Of course, if the have the expertise to make REAL, nasty, chemical weapons, they will be spared to kill more of the poor, other races, and those with other religious beliefs. #So what's your point? Do you only apply your principles selectively, when it's convienant, while others get the real job done. #Ask the Tibetan monks how your ideas worked against the #Red Chinese. #Their higher standards included not doing what it takes to defend themselves.
KD6NIG
11-10-2005, 05:09 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ Nov. 10 2005,09:51)]You're outnumbered and swinging so far left that Hillary Clinton, who by the by voted for the war, seems reasonable.
That is one thing that seems to be convienently forgotten sometimes, isn't it? All you hear is 'Bush led the country this way' yet the law clearly states that only congress can issue an official decleration of war, right?
I have always adored the convience of government though. You can vote for something, and if it turns out good, pat yourself on the back vigorusly, but if it fails, you can literally make everyone forget your decision.
W8EFA
11-10-2005, 05:51 PM
Let's get the history straight.
Bush and Bush only asked for permission to invade Iraq.
Bush and Bush only said the reasoning was Iraq had WMD's, possible Nuclear weapons, and was a threat to the U.S.
Bush and Bush only asked for this permission to be able to take action as a last resort if needed in the future.
It passed because our President asked for it and congressman assumed he was being truthful and supported our President as they should.
We now know he was completely and utterly wrong. #We now have evidence that information that was detrimental to their case for war was disregarded and squashed, while any shred of evidence to support their cause was embellished. #Wake up conservatives and realize you were lied to and hold this administration accountable!
Again all you have to do is go to the actual PNAC website and you will see the Bush Administrations leaders state their principles of using the military to estabilsh new Democracys. Isn't that why we hated the Communists? Trying to overthrow governments and installing Communism?
Why didn't Bush go to Congress and say I want to try to change the Mideast by estabilishing a Democracy and desposing of a tyrant? #
He lied. Do the Ends justify the means? #Absolutely not! #We cant have our elected reps lyng to us because they know better than the people. #That will be the end of our Republic. #Impeach Bush Now!
KD6NIG
11-10-2005, 06:28 PM
Okay, fine, I'll buy your argument for a moment-
Who do you expect to replace him then?
The mistake, as you put it, has already been made. How do you propose to fix it?
Have the same congress that ASSUMED what he was saying was true fix it?
You're ASSUMING by impeaching him the problem will be instantly solved?
I personally think that by saying what you just said, you also proved another fact-that congress wasn't smart enough to verify the Bravo Sierra before acting. That doesn't make them look very smart in my eyes, either. If he duped them, how does that make them look also?
I don't know if he lied or not, but trying to save face by impeaching the person who allegedly duped them isn't going to solve the problem either. It might make people feel better, but the bottom line is, the mistake, if there was one, was already made.
I see a lot of finger pointing and calls for kicking people out, but who is going to fix the problem once the boots are applied to said butts? One of the same people who was duped into taking this course by the person who got booted?
I mean, I don't exactly like the course we took either, but what you're saying is like me walking into a used car lot, being convinced to buy a car, finding out later its a lemon, and me wanting to toss the person who sold me it. Was it his fault that he lied, or was it my fault that I didn't have someone check the car out?
I mean, if he was able to dupe congress, then either hes a pretty good used car salesman, or they didn't check things out beforehand, which to me, in making a major decision, should have happened, right?
If they didn't do so, then they should be partially to blame, right? Ok, he duped them, so hes the primary suspect, but they didn't bother checking into it either, it appears. I'm not saying what he did was nessacarily right, but congress not preforming the CHECK in the CHECKS AND BALANCES part of our government would be a failure on thier part, right?
Inquiring minds want to know. I'm just looking for some consistancy here, is all. If impeaching him will make you feel better, by all means go for it-but its not going to fix the fact that if a president makes a logical enough argument, congress just takes his word for it-as people every day, we are supposed to make informed decisions, and if we decide not to check into something before deciding, we pay the price, right?
From an accountability standpoint, if everything done was wrong, then he's the primary suspect, but there was also some assistance from congress in this crime then. If you rob a bank and the robber convinces you to drive the getaway car, ok, you're an accessory. You're not as guilty as the person who commited the actual crime, but you're still partially accountable because you helped him.
Impeach him if you wish, but saying congress is totally innocent because they were duped isn't correct. Either they didn't do thier job by not looking into what they were doing before they did it, or they did and thats why they did what they did.
Either way, if this war is wrong, they are accountable in some small percentage, still. I'm not saying they are totally to blame, but they do have some responsibility in the matter. Trying to hold them harmless because they were supposedly duped isn't totally correct-they are still partially to blame. Putting 100% of the blame on the prez isn't correct. Maybe 90% or a majority of it, but you still have to look at congress and at least shake your head a little. Either they bought the story without looking into it, or they were all totally fooled. Being fooled or not checking into it before voting is thier responsibility alone.
-----
And, now that the mistake has been made, at least according to some people, how do we fix it?
Quote[/b] ]It passed because our President asked for it and congressman assumed he was being truthful and supported our President as they should.
ALL of the Dems on the senate intelligence committee saw ALL of the intelligence related the the IRAQ war before voting on it. They had the same intelligence that the president had, provided by George Tennant's CIA, a Clinton holdover. Didn't and still haven't heard a peep out of any of them.
Quote[/b] ]Bush and Bush only asked for permission to invade Iraq.
Bush and Bush only said the reasoning was Iraq had WMD's, possible Nuclear weapons, and was a threat to the U.S.
Bush and Bush only asked for this permission to be able to take action as a last resort if needed in the future.
Your not trying to deny Saddam EVER had WMD's are you? It'd probably be a real easy to line up some Kurdish and Iranian survivors of Saddams non-existant WMD's to prove you wrong.
I'd classify wasting months of time dinking around with the UN and Europe trying to avoid a war, then discovering they weren't going to do anything, as a last resort.
When the one organization (UN) that is supposed to apply pressure throws it's hands up, and as it turns out now was getting kick backs from the dictator in question, I'd classify that as a last resort.
When nobody on the planet can make an accurate accounting of ALL of the WMD that everybody else on the planet knew Saddam had AND USED, and to protect us from Saddam selling such weapons to mad men like Bin Ladden or Al-Zarchawi to use on us, this president would have been irresponsible not to go to war.
Of course EFA and the rest of the anti-war crowd here would be yelping like little Pit Yorky's if just one of Saddams weapons got loose and used on US soil.
Their argument isn't about the war, it's still about the elections they've lost. The war is just a convenient excuse to sound off.
kc7jty
11-11-2005, 02:09 AM
Quote[/b] (k6bbc @ Nov. 08 2005,22:17)]I think we might need a good PR firm to rebuild our image after Bush’s term is up.
Don't you know we're in a freefall? Don't make no matter who comes after Juliet Oscar George weeza gonna keep on a fallin.
kc7jty
11-11-2005, 02:11 AM
Quote[/b] (KC2ESD @ Nov. 08 2005,22:50)]Tell the Terrorists to keep it up and we will drop more WP. We should show no fear or reserve to the terrorists, just a kick butt attitude untill they give up.
Great idea. After all, look how well it worked for Israel.
You have seen the lists of libs, prior to the year 2000, and the comments made by them which clearly indicate they beleived there were WMD in Iraq. The only problem I have with the war is that we are not using enough of our sophisticated weapons to wipe out the vermon, who, if they had the opportunity, would wipe out you and every member of your family.
kc7jty
11-12-2005, 07:40 PM
Anyone else notice how Al Zarquowie's (sp?) eyes are whitened and lit up like he is a hollywood nutcase when his image is on TV?
Please spare me the puppet show for the children.
Quote[/b] ]Liberalism
A 19th-century Protestant movement that favored free intellectual inquiry, stressed the ethical and humanitarian content of Christianity, and de-emphasized dogmatic theology.
A 19th-century Roman Catholic movement that favored political democracy and ecclesiastical reform but was theologically orthodox.
If you are against Liberalism, you are obviously against ethics. Intellectual thinking is not a part of your repertoire. I have a hard time understanding why people who are against voicing opinions will voice opinions.
Who amongst us wants "Willie P" dropped in our neighborhoods? The "Failed" policies of the Left created 8 years where no soldiers were sent into harms way and returned home in a body bag. The "failed" policies of the Left had 2 building remaining in New York that aren't there any more. The "failed" policies of the Left created a strong economy. The "failed" policies of the left created a budget surplus. The "failed" policies of the left did not drop BPL on hams.
To "fail" to a conservative is to obviously succeed in a real world situation. With your logic, I want my kids to "Fail" in school so they make all A's. Why would anyone use the word "fail" when describing success? Are you simply Anti-American?
White phospherous is against the Geneva Convention when used against civilians.
Quote[/b] ]By the way, I also appreciate everyone coming on here and bashing our military, who is doing a job that I wouldn't want to do, about what is viewed as an inhumane weapon.
Let's say for example, you are a US Senator and you get a bill that is to fund armored vehicles for the soldiers you want to fight for the US of A.
"Statement of Purpose: To increase by $360,800,000 amounts appropriated by title IX for Other Procurement, Army, for the procurement of armored Tactical Wheeled Vehicles for units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to increase by $5,000,000 amounts appropriated by title IX for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-Wide, for industrial preparedness for the implementation of a ballistics engineering research center."
Thirteen Republicans voted for this bill out of 56. Now, tell me who is "bashing" the military?