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

[hadit]

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.....

I agree, he should have insisted on a formal declaration of war.

 

[nat4900]

If they had their say we would all live in 900 sqft. homes, ride on horses and buggies, shoes would be given to you by the state.

So, from trying to CURB the sale of army-assault-style weapons whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time as possible.....YOU went to liberals trying to deny the above??

Even an idiot would conclude that such an assertion is moronic. Are you then such a moron?

 

[nat4900]

That's what I thought. You need sleaze to peddle your bullshit, not me.

Moron...there are dozens of other publications that assert the same thing.......Here, deny THIS....

 

[Iceweasel]

That's what I thought. You need sleaze to peddle your bullshit, not me.

Moron...there are dozens of other publications that assert the same thing.......Here, deny THIS....

Calls me a moron, claims dozens of publicans back him up then posts a photo of a handshake.

snicker

 

[nat4900]

Calls me a moron, claims dozens of publicans back him up then posts a photo of a handshake.

snicker

Stay dumb as you are....I really don't care...... LOL

 

[P@triot]

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
By WILLIAM LOWTHER, Daily Mail

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.
As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.
The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.
They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.

The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.

Read more: Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons'
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

So now you just proved that Iraq had WMD's after claiming that Iraq "did not" have WMD's....

 

[Papageorgio]

If they had their say we would all live in 900 sqft. homes, ride on horses and buggies, shoes would be given to you by the state.

So, from trying to CURB the sale of army-assault-style weapons whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time as possible.....YOU went to liberals trying to deny the above??

Even an idiot would conclude that such an assertion is moronic. Are you then such a moron?

Who are you to decide why or what a person buys? It was a sarcastic comment based on liberals trying to control things that are not their business. It seems that when you got nothing you jump to name calling, which is often.

 

[Papageorgio]

That's what I thought. You need sleaze to peddle your bullshit, not me.

Moron...there are dozens of other publications that assert the same thing.......Here, deny THIS....

Calls me a moron, claims dozens of publicans back him up then posts a photo of a handshake.

snicker

It seems Nat like to name call when he has nothing, which is often.

 

[P@triot]

I agree, he should have insisted on a formal declaration of war.

First of all, it was not a "war". We did not invade Iraq, plant the American flag in their soil, and placed their citizens under U.S. rule. We conducted military operations to remove a dictator and immediately handed the country over to the Iraqi people.

Second, Bush did get Congressional approval to conduct the military operations. Something Barack Obama has never done (of course - because Dumbocrats believe president = dictator).

Third, not only did Bush get Congressional approval, he then went before the UN and got UN approval.

 

[nat4900]

So now you just proved that Iraq had WMD's after claiming that Iraq "did not" have WMD's....

Eternal moron...........Here's the question for your half brain to answer:

Did we invade and occupy Iraq because we wanted back those chemical weapons that we sold to them 15 years earlier?

Answer, YES or NO????

Go on, nitwit......

 

[nat4900]

It seems Nat like to name call when he has nothing, which is often.

When dealing with idiots, one MUST call them idiots.....I'm not that "politically correct"....Are you ???

 

[nat4900]

Who are you to decide why or what a person buys? It was a sarcastic comment based on liberals trying to control things that are not their business. It seems that when you got nothing you jump to name calling, which is often.

Fine.......Just know that it is YOUR ilk that is making the purchase of military weapons to would be terrorists both LEGAL and READILY available............Live with it.

 

[Papageorgio]

It seems Nat like to name call when he has nothing, which is often.

When dealing with idiots, one MUST call them idiots.....I'm not that "politically correct"....Are you ???

Okay if you say so dumb fuck!

 

[nat4900]

Okay if you say so dumb fuck!

Good response......and all it took was to lightly scratch the surface of your facade.......Put me on ignore and see if I give a crap.....LOL

 

[M14 Shooter]

If they had their say we would all live in 900 sqft. homes, ride on horses and buggies, shoes would be given to you by the state.

So, from trying to CURB the sale of army-assault-style weapons whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time as possible

Even an idiot would conclude that such an assertion is moronic.

 

[hadit]

I agree, he should have insisted on a formal declaration of war.

First of all, it was not a "war". We did not invade Iraq, plant the American flag in their soil, and placed their citizens under U.S. rule. We conducted military operations to remove a dictator and immediately handed the country over to the Iraqi people.

Second, Bush did get Congressional approval to conduct the military operations. Something Barack Obama has never done (of course - because Dumbocrats believe president = dictator).

Third, not only did Bush get Congressional approval, he then went before the UN and got UN approval.

Oh, he certainly got approval, and needed it. After Japan was defeated in WWII, we helped them rebuild and regain their sovereignty, just as we did in Iraq. My bottom line is that the president should not have the authority to unilaterally send troops into offensive combat. That power is far too easily abused.

 

[Papageorgio]

Who are you to decide why or what a person buys? It was a sarcastic comment based on liberals trying to control things that are not their business. It seems that when you got nothing you jump to name calling, which is often.

Fine.......Just know that it is YOUR ilk that is making the purchase of military weapons to would be terrorists both LEGAL and READILY available............Live with it.

It is your ilk that seems to think you have a right to decide what one can do or not do. The price of freedom is high. Live with it because you have no choice.

 

[P@triot]

If they had their say we would all live in 900 sqft. homes, ride on horses and buggies, shoes would be given to you by the state.

So, from trying to CURB the sale of army-assault-style weapons whose ONLY purpose is to kill as many people as possible in the shortest time as possible.....YOU went to liberals trying to deny the above??

Even an idiot would conclude that such an assertion is moronic. Are you then such a moron?

False narrative as always from little Natalie. An AR-15 is no more capable of killing "as many people as possible" than a revolver. They both shoot only as fast as the person is capable of pulling the trigger. An AR-15 is not a fully automatic weapon.

What's funny though is that those weapons are available and libtards haven't mentioned them once. You know why? Because none of them have been used in a massacre. I personally have a friend who owns a fully automatic 9mm Uzi. And I have an acquaintance (wouldn't quite call them a friend) that has a fully automatic .45 Thompson submachine gun. That's right - the gangster-era machine guns. I've personally shot it - and let me tell you - fully automatic .45's flying around are a billion times more dangerous than semi-automatic 9mm's. But liberals are losing their mind over a semi-automatic platform simply because it looks like what the U.S. military carries. That really tells you about the limited mental capacity of these people.

 

[P@triot]

I agree, he should have insisted on a formal declaration of war.

First of all, it was not a "war". We did not invade Iraq, plant the American flag in their soil, and placed their citizens under U.S. rule. We conducted military operations to remove a dictator and immediately handed the country over to the Iraqi people.

Second, Bush did get Congressional approval to conduct the military operations. Something Barack Obama has never done (of course - because Dumbocrats believe president = dictator).

Third, not only did Bush get Congressional approval, he then went before the UN and got UN approval.

Oh, he certainly got approval, and needed it. After Japan was defeated in WWII, we helped them rebuild and regain their sovereignty, just as we did in Iraq. My bottom line is that the president should not have the authority to unilaterally send troops into offensive combat. That power is far too easily abused.

There is some truth to that, but there is no alternative. You can't have a committee in charge. You need one person. Now, the President does require approval from Congress to wage an actual war. But for military operations, you can't have people sitting around for weeks debating when action is required. The windows of opportunity will close before a decision is made. Furthermore, what if certain factions of the military show loyalty to certain people on the committee while other factions show loyalty to other people on the committee? It would be a mess.

 

[P@triot]

So now you just proved that Iraq had WMD's after claiming that Iraq "did not" have WMD's....

Eternal moron...........Here's the question for your half brain to answer:

Did we invade and occupy Iraq because we wanted back those chemical weapons that we sold to them 15 years earlier?

Answer, YES or NO????

Go on, nitwit......

Don't try to get out of this. You claimed Iraq had no WMD's (because you had no fucking clue what constituted WMD's). And because you had no clue, you then posted something proving they had WMD's.

When you're ready to become a "big girl" for the first time in your life and admit you were wrong, I will gladly address your questions. Let me know when you're ready.