What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

[Papageorgio]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

View attachment 79297

LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.

You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.

Hillary deliberately floated stories about women being raped and abused to be able to bomb Libya.

 

[Campbell]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

View attachment 79297

LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.

You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.

That's a goddam boldfaced lie. The only reason Bush had to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993. Not to worry....his family vengeance only cost 4500 young American lives and 35,000 seriously wounded.

 

[Papageorgio]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

View attachment 79297

LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.

You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.

That's a goddam boldfaced lie. The only reason Bush had to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993. Not to worry....his family vengeance only cost 4500 young American lives and 35,000 seriously wounded.

More liberal lies, do you guys ever smarten up?

 

[Iceweasel]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

View attachment 79297

LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.

You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.

That's a goddam boldfaced lie. The only reason Bush had to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993. Not to worry....his family vengeance only cost 4500 young American lives and 35,000 seriously wounded.

You never recovered from Bush derangement. There were numerous reasons to invade, namely breaking their terms of surrender. It could have been avoided if the UN did more than play circle jerk but you can mangle your brain into a twisted ball of hate but it changes nothing in this reality.

 

[2aguy]

Yes, so many things can be deadly to fragile human beings. Still, nothing else is like that power to just squeeze that little trigger and have a lethal chunk of metal unleashed up to a kilometer or more away. And that nice, loud bang! Almost a shame to muffle it with some danged 'silencer'.

Yes....when you are attacked by a younger, stronger, more aggressive thug...who has spent his life abusing other human beings without remorse or sympathy for his victims.....it is nice to know that women and the elderly have a tool that will allow them to survive the attack......especially if the violent monster is armed with a knife, club or just his hands...or his own, illegally acquired and carried gun.....or if he has brought one or more criminal friends with him.......

It is nice to know that finally, in the entire history of man, the weak can finally fight off the strong.....

You dumbass!!! Your scenario is so far from the reality of statistics that it makes you appear to be a fool.

The reality of statistics.....according to the Department of Justice study conducted by bill clinton's dept. of justice.....Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives.........

On top of that.....do you actually do any research into this topic...because pulling things out of your ass has to hurt.....

 

[2aguy]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

View attachment 79297

LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.

You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.

That's a goddam boldfaced lie. The only reason Bush had to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993. Not to worry....his family vengeance only cost 4500 young American lives and 35,000 seriously wounded.

Wrong....over 3,000 Americans died because clinton allowed muslim terrorists to fester and grow in power.....sadaam had been in violation of every part of the cease fire agreement he had signed.....and was funding terrorist groups around the world......allowing him to continue to be a problem would have been a mistake....

Bush's biggest mistake...going to war with democrats behind him...because as soon as the war began, they started undermining the effort.....

 

[P@triot]

So far I haven't killed or maimed anyone with my PC!!

Sure you have. Many have died due to the misinformation, propaganda, and egregious lies that liberals like you use your pc to spread all over the world.

 

[nat4900]

Liberals love to get the US in wars,

Breaking news !!!!!!! Dick-faced Cheney was a "liberal"......

 

[nat4900]

Hillary deliberately floated stories about women being raped and abused to be able to bomb Libya.

Beside hearing those stories on FOX......are there any OBJECTIVE sources to back up your accusation???

 

[Conservative65]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

View attachment 79297

LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.

You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.

That's a goddam boldfaced lie. The only reason Bush had to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993. Not to worry....his family vengeance only cost 4500 young American lives and 35,000 seriously wounded.

Your Alzheimers is acting up you old bastard.

 

[nat4900]

You never recovered from Bush derangement. There were numerous reasons to invade, namely breaking their terms of surrender. It could have been avoided if the UN did more than play circle jerk but you can mangle your brain into a twisted ball of hate but it changes nothing in this reality.

Ahhh, now its the UN's fault.......

Did you ever wonder that after baby-Bush named 3 countries the "axis of evil".......invaded the WEAKEST of those 3 countries, and we wound up with 4500 US casualties and over $3 TRILLION in debt through a credit card......WHY you morons STILL refuse to place the blame where it belongs???

 

[nat4900]

Wrong....over 3,000 Americans died because clinton allowed muslim terrorists to fester and grow in power.....sadaam had been in violation of every part of the cease fire agreement he had signed.....and was funding terrorist groups around the world......allowing him to continue to be a problem would have been a mistake....

So, let's set the record straight........

Saddam was funding Palestinian terrorist groups......bad, bad boy that Saddam.....

Your "conclusion" is then that 3,000+ of our citizens died because those Palestinian groups masterminded 9-11?

(how truly fucked up are you???)

 

[Iceweasel]

You never recovered from Bush derangement. There were numerous reasons to invade, namely breaking their terms of surrender. It could have been avoided if the UN did more than play circle jerk but you can mangle your brain into a twisted ball of hate but it changes nothing in this reality.

Ahhh, now its the UN's fault.......

Did you ever wonder that after baby-Bush named 3 countries the "axis of evil".......invaded the WEAKEST of those 3 countries, and we wound up with 4500 US casualties and over $3 TRILLION in debt through a credit card......WHY you morons STILL refuse to place the blame where it belongs???

Now? They had the phony oil for food program going that Saddam used to build his army and palaces. Also, Germany was selling them arms. The UN just kept dragging out the weapons inspection sham and doing not a thing about all the UN violations. I criticized them 20 years ago, where were you? Hillary and most of the dems voted for the war so don't blame others for your cognitive dissonance and ignorance.

 

[P@triot]

Liberals love to get the US in wars,

Breaking news !!!!!!! Dick-faced Cheney was a "liberal"......

Obama has taken us into conflicts in Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. At the same time, he has not withdrawn from Iraq or Afghanistan and more troops have died under him in Afghanistan than died under Bush.

Furthermore, Afghanistan was in response to 9/11 and Saddam Hussein posed a serious threat to the world. Qaddafi was our ally (after 9/11 he surrendered his entire nuclear arsenal to the U.S. and cooperated with us fully) so overthrowing him in Libya made zero sense (and lead to the deaths of 4 Americans in Benghazi), Morsi posed no threat at all so overthrowing him in Egypt made zero sense, and Assad has posed no threat to us so getting involved in Syria makes zero sense. And worst of all, those governments have now been replaced by the muslim brotherhood - radical muslims implementing Sharia Law which allows women to be raped and then stones them to death for being raped.

Would you like to try again Natalie?

 

[P@triot]

You never recovered from Bush derangement. There were numerous reasons to invade, namely breaking their terms of surrender. It could have been avoided if the UN did more than play circle jerk but you can mangle your brain into a twisted ball of hate but it changes nothing in this reality.

Ahhh, now its the UN's fault.......

Did you ever wonder that after baby-Bush named 3 countries the "axis of evil".......invaded the WEAKEST of those 3 countries, and we wound up with 4500 US casualties and over $3 TRILLION in debt through a credit card......WHY you morons STILL refuse to place the blame where it belongs???

Wait....so your position is that 9/11 should have gone without a response? Seriously?

 

[P@triot]

Hillary deliberately floated stories about women being raped and abused to be able to bomb Libya.

Which is really bizarre since the liberal battle cry during the Bush Administration was "we are not the world police". So why would Hitlery or Obama care that women were being raped and abused in Libya?

 

[P@triot]

Liberals love to get the US in wars,

Breaking news !!!!!!! Dick-faced Cheney was a "liberal"......

It is unfortunate that you do not realize that at least half (if not more) of the Republican Party is made up of liberals. The Dumbocrat Party is almost exclusively socialist, marxists, and communists now. The liberals have almost all moved to the Republican Party.

 

[nat4900]

Now? They had the phony oil for food program going that Saddam used to build his army and palaces. Also, Germany was selling them arms. The UN just kept dragging out the weapons inspection sham and doing not a thing about all the UN violations. I criticized them 20 years ago, where were you? Hillary and most of the dems voted for the war so don't blame others for your cognitive dissonance and ignorance.

The above, a fucked up review of history based on FOX brainwashing....

Based on this idiot's revisionist history.....

• We should have attacked Germany for selling weapons to Saddam.
• Saddam was building up his army so well....and that is why they were defeated in about a week.
• The UN failed in having their inspection of [the non-existent] WMDs......and that is why Powell ordered the UN inspectors out of Iraq before bombing the shit out of that country.

 

[nat4900]

It is unfortunate that you do not realize that at least half (if not more) of the Republican Party is made up of liberals. The Dumbocrat Party is almost exclusively socialist, marxists, and communists now. The liberals have almost all moved to the Republican Party.

You're more of an idiot than usual......."Liberals are all in the GOP now????" Are you serious???
Those daily enemas are not helping you, it seems.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

This idea of the NRA governing the types of weapons available in gun shops is rank bull shit! Why is it that we're the only industrialized nation in the world which feels the necessity of a ordinary citizen to go armed with a military style killing machine?

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

View attachment 79297

LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.

You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.

That's a goddam boldfaced lie. The only reason Bush had to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993. Not to worry....his family vengeance only cost 4500 young American lives and 35,000 seriously wounded.

How many young American Lives were killed and wounded in WWII. that was FDR's war? Hmm? How easy you forget that one, or how many died and wounded in Vietnam, Kennedy's and then Johnson's war? Hmmm? Bush was a liberal, why do liberals love to make war on other people? Could it be that they want their liberal war machines to make obscene profits? Oops, bet you didn't know that, did ya?

For Hillary Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship

On a trip to Moscow early in her tenure as secretary of state, Hillary Rodham Clinton played the role of international saleswoman, pressing Russian government officials to sign a multibillion-dollar deal to buy dozens of aircraft from Boeing.

Just follow the money and you will see how liberals love to make war.