Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What he did was went into business with H.W. Bush and Bush screwed him over, so in anger he put a hit out on H.W. Bush, whose son just happened to be the President of the United States, so his his son threw the might, and innocent lives of the U.S. military at Saddam for his scumbag father.
That's how it really was.
Saddam used to be a regular for dinner at The White House.
What he did was went into business with H.W. Bush and Bush screwed him over, so in anger he put a hit out on H.W. Bush, whose son just happened to be the President of the United States, so his his son threw the might, and innocent lives of the U.S. military at Saddam for his scumbag father.
That's how it really was.
Saddam used to be a regular for dinner at The White House.
Really? Saddam was invited over for dinner? You have documentation for this?
Now, the thing was, our policy towards Iraq was friendly in the 1980's, but hardly the "State Dinner" level. The Zionists would have never allowed it. They spent most of the 1980's screaming about Saddam and did a big "I told you so" when he invaded Kuwait.
I was mistaken, it was the Bin Ladens.
I was mistaken, it was the Bin Ladens.
Maybe it was the Bilderbergers... or the Trilaterialists? Or the Lizard People.
Maybe it's so far off-topic, doesn't matter.
PS: GFY.
Your view of the size of the Jewish population in NYC is rather exaggerated.I find it hilarious that you think you know what goes on in the Jewish world.
You think all I know are "Religous Zionists"?
99% of the almost completely assimilated Jews in Manhattan now belong to Zionist organizations but they're not going to tell you that.
In fact, over 2/3 of New York City Liberal Jews vote Republican and then lie about it.
You're delusional. If that were the case, The Orange Shitgibbon would have won New York.
Jewish Voting Record in U.S. Presidential Elections
So why do the Republicans spend so much time sucking up to the Zionists?
Part of the reason is they have so much influence, you can't afford to piss them off, which is why both parties suck up to the Zionist Entity.
Part of the reason is that there are a bunch of dumb, inbred Christians who think we need the Zionist Entity to exist so Jay-a-zus can come back and end the world. (Seriously, why they look forward to this is kind of sad, but never mind.)
the IJN link says you are wrongyou have no idea of naval air/carriers--do you?
the Japanese used 2 waves with 6 carriers at PH--the ships were stationary...not at war alert--in fact a lot were sleeping, etc---an attack was the last thing on their mind
i'm cutting you off right here, because you are getting totally off topic.
your claim was "No one could possibly have thought of the military application of aircraft carriers".
Except they totally did. Both British and the Japanese, and America had developed carriers and had a pretty good idea how to use them.
now, which brings us back to "Oh, My God, Saddam had old cans of Mustard Gas they buried in 1991 and were expired!"
The reality was, poison gas isn't much of a threat. You have to saturate an area with it, and hope your enemy doesn't have gas masks, which they probably do.
It's why even though he had a pretty substantial chemical arsenal during the Gulf War, Saddam didn't use them.
Now, when they didn't come up with the nukes or the anthrax or the huge stockpiles they said Saddam had, and people started looking at Dubya like he lied to us, you have some GOP tools saying, "See, see, we dug up this old can of mustard gas!" Which the Iraqis buried to comply with the 1991 cease-fire because they really didn't know how else to dispose of them.
you have no idea of naval air/carriers--do you?
the Japanese used 2 waves with 6 carriers at PH--the ships were stationary...not at war alert--in fact a lot were sleeping, etc---an attack was the last thing on their mind
i'm cutting you off right here, because you are getting totally off topic.
your claim was "No one could possibly have thought of the military application of aircraft carriers".
Except they totally did. Both British and the Japanese, and America had developed carriers and had a pretty good idea how to use them.
now, which brings us back to "Oh, My God, Saddam had old cans of Mustard Gas they buried in 1991 and were expired!"
The reality was, poison gas isn't much of a threat. You have to saturate an area with it, and hope your enemy doesn't have gas masks, which they probably do.
It's why even though he had a pretty substantial chemical arsenal during the Gulf War, Saddam didn't use them.
Now, when they didn't come up with the nukes or the anthrax or the huge stockpiles they said Saddam had, and people started looking at Dubya like he lied to us, you have some GOP tools saying, "See, see, we dug up this old can of mustard gas!" Which the Iraqis buried to comply with the 1991 cease-fire because they really didn't know how else to dispose of them.
Agree. A one state solution. It's time the Palley's move somewhere else or get the treatment, their choice.In the Hollywood Hills parents don't have to worry about their children's school bus being blown up by another distraught loser.
Different worlds.
Right. Because nobody stole their land... that's the point.
It takes a special kind of fuckhead to live next to people who want to kill you because a Magical Fairy in the Sky promised you this land.
this was the argument--post 387:you have no idea of naval air/carriers--do you?
the Japanese used 2 waves with 6 carriers at PH--the ships were stationary...not at war alert--in fact a lot were sleeping, etc---an attack was the last thing on their mind
i'm cutting you off right here, because you are getting totally off topic.
your claim was "No one could possibly have thought of the military application of aircraft carriers".
Except they totally did. Both British and the Japanese, and America had developed carriers and had a pretty good idea how to use them.
now, which brings us back to "Oh, My God, Saddam had old cans of Mustard Gas they buried in 1991 and were expired!"
The reality was, poison gas isn't much of a threat. You have to saturate an area with it, and hope your enemy doesn't have gas masks, which they probably do.
It's why even though he had a pretty substantial chemical arsenal during the Gulf War, Saddam didn't use them.
Now, when they didn't come up with the nukes or the anthrax or the huge stockpiles they said Saddam had, and people started looking at Dubya like he lied to us, you have some GOP tools saying, "See, see, we dug up this old can of mustard gas!" Which the Iraqis buried to comply with the 1991 cease-fire because they really didn't know how else to dispose of them.
I made the point carriers were never used before like they were at PHnot used often does not mean it's not a threat
the IJN link says you are wrong
it's right THERE
Agree. A one state solution. It's time the Palley's move somewhere else or get the treatment, their choice.
exactly--a sailor or citizen--but not a whole fleet!!!! you just said it ....exactly my pointthe IJN link says you are wrong
it's right THERE
Guy, you are kind of done... you made a claim no one knew how dangerous aircraft carriers were before Pearl Harbor, and I cited numerous cases where they were VERY Dangerous if you happened to be a Chinese civilian or an Italian Sailor.
Agree. A one state solution. It's time the Palley's move somewhere else or get the treatment, their choice.
More likely the Jews will leave than the Pally's.... some people actually think it's stupid to live next to people who want to kill you.
The Japanese had thus taken a step that no Western navy had yet made
maybe you don't know the meaning:
With this revolutionary innovation
exactly--a sailor or citizen--but not a whole fleet!!!! you just said it ....exactly my point
'''revolutionary''' !! yes it was a ''new'' inventionexactly--a sailor or citizen--but not a whole fleet!!!! you just said it ....exactly my point
Guy, you don't have a point... Get back to me when you do.
Point was, Pearl Harbor was not this wonderful new invention of the Aircraft Carrier. (It was also never repeated, the Japanese never sank another American Battleship after Pearl Harbor).
which brings us back to Poison Gas. Not a very effective weapon for terrorists, not really an effective battlefield weapons, which is why it was never used all that much after WWII.
And not why we went to war with Iraq. Nobody went to war over "Expired Mustard Gas".
'''revolutionary''' !! yes it was a ''new'' invention
''no Western navy had yet made''' ....
I even gave you the definition.....
you are a bootcamper to WW2--admit it, you know next to nothing about WW2
but you know nothing of WW2'''revolutionary''' !! yes it was a ''new'' invention
''no Western navy had yet made''' ....
I even gave you the definition.....
you are a bootcamper to WW2--admit it, you know next to nothing about WW2
Well, a major university would disagree with you, becuase they gave me a history degree.
But dude, you lost this argument pages ago... not even sure why you are still bothering.
but you know nothing of WW2
I've been reading/.studying WW2 for over 40 yearsbut you know nothing of WW2
Again, take it up with UIC, they thought otherwise when they gave me a degree.
I've been reading/....?
so it was not a degree in naval history??I've been reading/....?
Yawn, guy, you lost the argument about poison gas pages ago...
Not sure why you are persisting.
