Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 138
  1. #106
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,823
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34146
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7758
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475725

    Default

    If this satisfies anyone, this is from Wiki, which was referenced in this thread already. I suppose individual things can be broken down and be debated from here. It lists 3 different terms - 1) Strategic 2) Military 3) Civilian

    -------------

    United States
    Strategic

    The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole. While nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are regarded as the three major types of WMDs,[17] some analysts have argued that radiological materials as well as missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs as well.[17]

    The abbreviations NBC (for nuclear, biological and chemical) or CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) are used with regards to battlefield protection systems for armored vehicles, because all three involve insidious toxins that can be carried through the air and can be protected against with vehicle air filtration systems.

    However, there is an argument that nuclear and biological weapons do not belong in the same category as chemical and "dirty bomb" radiological weapons, which have limited destructive potential (and close to none, as far as property is concerned), whereas nuclear and biological weapons have the unique ability to kill large numbers of people with very small amounts of material, and thus could be said to belong in a class by themselves.

    The NBC definition has also been used in official U.S. documents, by the U.S. President,[18][19] the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,[20] the U.S. Department of Defense,[21][22] and the U.S. Government Accountability Office.[23]

    Other documents expand the definition of WMD to also include radiological or conventional weapons. The U.S. military refers to WMD as:

    Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD.[24]

    This may also refer to nuclear ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles).

    The significance of the words separable and divisible part of the weapon is that missiles such as the Pershing II and the SCUD are considered weapons of mass destruction, while aircraft capable of carrying bombloads are not.

    In 2004, the United Kingdom's Butler Review recognized the "considerable and long-standing academic debate about the proper interpretation of the phrase ‘weapons of mass destruction’". The committee set out to avoid the general term but when using it, employed the definition of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which defined the systems which Iraq was required to abandon:

    "Nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any sub-systems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities relating to [nuclear weapons].
    Chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research,development,support and manufacturing facilities.
    Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities."[25]

    Chemical weapons expert Gert G. Harigel considers only nuclear weapons true weapons of mass destruction, because "only nuclear weapons are completely indiscriminate by their explosive power, heat radiation and radioactivity, and only they should therefore be called a weapon of mass destruction". He prefers to call chemical and biological weapons "weapons of terror" when aimed against civilians and "weapons of intimidation" for soldiers.

    Testimony of one such soldier expresses the same viewpoint.[26] For a period of several months in the winter of 2002–2003, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz frequently used the term "weapons of mass terror," apparently also recognizing the distinction between the psychological and the physical effects of many things currently falling into the WMD category.

    Gustavo Bell Lemus, the Vice President of Colombia, at 9 July 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, quoted the Millennium Report of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly, in which Kofi Annan said that small arms could be described as WMD because the fatalities they cause "dwarf that of all other weapons systems – and in most years greatly exceed the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki".[27]

    An additional condition often implicitly applied to WMD is that the use of the weapons must be strategic. In other words, they would be designed to "have consequences far outweighing the size and effectiveness of the weapons themselves".[28] The strategic nature of WMD also defines their function in the military doctrine of total war as targeting the means a country would use to support and supply its war effort, specifically its population, industry, and natural resources.

    Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

    (1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.[29]

    Military

    For the general purposes of national defense,[30] the U.S. Code[31] defines a weapon of mass destruction as:

    any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
    toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
    a disease organism
    radiation or radioactivity[32]

    For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,[33] the U.S. Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons."[34]
    Criminal (civilian)

    For the purposes of US criminal law concerning terrorism,[35] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:

    any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[36]
    any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
    any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
    any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[37]

    The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[38]

    any "destructive device" as defined in Title 18 USC Section 921: any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses
    any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
    any weapon involving a disease organism
    any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
    any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.

    Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[39] pipe bombs,[40] shoe bombs,[41] and cactus needles coated with a biological toxin[42] have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

    As defined by 18 USC §2332 (a), a Weapon of Mass Destruction is:

    (a) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of the title;
    (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
    (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
    (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon...#United_States
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  2. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, Gunny, Jeff thanked this post
  3. #107
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nonnie View Post
    Did you know that pesticides are not WMD but if you have sufficient pesticides and use them in a manner towards citizens to be deemed as WMD, then they are deemed WMD.

    Basically, it's probably easier to work out what items aren't WMD.

    It's probably one of those where certain governments move the goal posts on word meanings to encompass more and more to suite their means.
    But where are you going with this ?

    Are you saying that those WMD's found in Iraq were full of pesticide ? Or could it be that they were filled with something rather more deadly ?

    Shall we stick to facts (I refer, of course, to facts hidden from scrutiny in the UK, courtesy of the British press ... those I've now provided you with evidence of) ?
    Last edited by Drummond; 09-06-2015 at 09:40 PM.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  4. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  5. #108
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    16,760
    Thanks (Given)
    94
    Thanks (Received)
    1751
    Likes (Given)
    7
    Likes (Received)
    165
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    13
    Mentioned
    54 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9306080

    Default

    The alleged "WMD" found in Iraq were decades old remnants of chemical stockpiles that were gained with cooperation with the U.S. during the Iraq-Iran conflict. There was nothing modern and certainly nothing that had been developed by the Iraqis.
    The WMD claims were lies perpetrated by the Bush regime in attempts to justify their invasion of Iraq. Nothing less.

  6. Thanks Nonnie thanked this post
  7. #109
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    119
    Thanks (Given)
    49
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    401092

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    But where are you going with this ?

    Are you saying that those WMD's found in Iraq were full of pesticide ? Or could it be that they were filled with something rather more deadly ?

    Shall we stick to facts (I refer, of course, to facts hidden from scrutiny in the UK, courtesy of the British press ... those I've now provided you with evidence of) ?
    In reality, WMD weren't found in Iraq.

    What was found was remnants of chemicals, as rightly explained by gabosaurus from previous wars.

    Any rational person would deem WMD would be bombs/missiles that are nuclear or chemical that are ready to load into or onto a plane and to be dropped or fired from the plane. Not a handful of rusty out of date casings and chemicals. But as the goalposts keeping moving with the definition of WMD to encompass more in order to back the West's argument, having a cupboard full of pressure cookers could now be deemed naughty.

    The culture in the Middle East means it needs controlled by dictators. As the dictators were removed, the nut jobs are now free to cause havoc. It was a bad situation and it's now a worse situation.

    So what's the answer now? If it was right to remove Saddam, now what?

  8. #110
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Posts
    47,979
    Thanks (Given)
    34370
    Thanks (Received)
    26486
    Likes (Given)
    2386
    Likes (Received)
    10007
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    12
    Mentioned
    369 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475526

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drummond View Post
    But where are you going with this ?

    Are you saying that those WMD's found in Iraq were full of pesticide ? Or could it be that they were filled with something rather more deadly ?

    Shall we stick to facts (I refer, of course, to facts hidden from scrutiny in the UK, courtesy of the British press ... those I've now provided you with evidence of) ?
    What the deal is the left refuses to acknowledge is we sold Saddam all kinds of chemical crap under the guise of dual use equipment while he was being the enemy of our enemy. The CIA taught his chemists to refine their mustard gas they used on Iran . Not so surprisingly, you used to could google that info bit it seems to have vanished with all the other things you could that in any way supported Bush/the right.

    The smear campaign is rather blatantly obvious. Just as blatantly obvious as if we sold the crap to him, I guess we damned well knew he had it. And as Jim pointed out, you got some knucklehead trying to redefine what a WMD is. Nuclear, biological and/or chemical weapons are WMD. The sarin Saddam used on the Kurds wasn't a figment of any of THEIR imaginations.

    As far as your pesticide questions goes, we try to pretend we aren't doing anything wrong by labeling the components "dual use". You can sell all kinds of crap individually that mean nothing until you start mixing some together. I'd rather just be nuked than hit with mustard gas. That crap makes your lungs blister, then they pop and you drown in your own crap. Chlorine's another cheap-o. It just burns you up from the inside out. Sarin is easily available on the black market and it doesn't take a whole lot. Think they used it on your subway a few years back.
    “When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.” Edumnd Burke

  9. Thanks Nonnie thanked this post
  10. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nonnie View Post
    In reality, WMD weren't found in Iraq.
    I'm well aware that your thinking is led by the British press's refusal to carry any news which contradicts that line. But I for one don't like having the British press censor my understanding of what's truly happening in the world.

    What was found was remnants of chemicals, as rightly explained by gabosaurus from previous wars.
    Nonnie, Gabby has her own Leftie political agenda.

    And .. calling them 'remnants' is highly inaccurate. They were old weapons, but my understanding is that they were also intact ones.

    Any rational person would deem WMD would be bombs/missiles that are nuclear or chemical that are ready to load into or onto a plane and to be dropped or fired from the plane. Not a handful of rusty out of date casings and chemicals. But as the goalposts keeping moving with the definition of WMD to encompass more in order to back the West's argument, having a cupboard full of pressure cookers could now be deemed naughty.
    Nonnie, it is you who's decided to move goalposts !! Nowhere in UN Resolution 1441 was it demanded that only pristine WMD's qualified to be WMD'S !! It's you who is now deciding that !! The very fact of their discovery proves once and for all that the UN Resolution was being violated, therefore, invasion was justified !

    The culture in the Middle East means it needs controlled by dictators. As the dictators were removed, the nut jobs are now free to cause havoc. It was a bad situation and it's now a worse situation.
    You don't believe that Middle Eastern dictators are nutjobs themselves ? Regimes ordering mass graves, rape rooms, that invade neighbouring regimes, act entirely sanely ?

    Should I post you a picture of Gaddafi wearing his choice of costume at the time, and advance it as evidence of 'sanity' ?

    So what's the answer now? If it was right to remove Saddam, now what?
    Here's my answer --

    1. Get rid of the Leftie-in-Chief, since he's a big impediment to the War on Terror.

    2. Recommence the War on Terror (.. 'naughty' idea, eh, Nonnie ?) !

    3. A declaration to the world, essentially a repeat of GW Bush's ... that there is, and can be, no safe haven for terrorists anywhere on this Earth. Countries not on board for fighting the War on Terror must be deemed to be in opposition to it.

    4. America coordinates its intelligence gathering activities with other equivalents (e.g MI6, GCHQ, Mossad, etc). Terrorist hotspots are located globally, their activities reviewed in the greatest detail possible.

    5. With the understanding in place that America will fight its War on Terror wherever that war leads, they then follow through, and do what it takes to neutralise the terrorists. Governments obstructing that effort are deemed hostile, and treated accordingly .. be it with frozen assets, sanctions, or even outright military action if required.

    6. With the precedent set of total intolerance towards terrorism WHEREVER it manifests itself, more and more cooperation would be forthcoming, and over time, the world would become too toxic a place for it to thrive. Unlike now, of course.
    Last edited by Drummond; 09-07-2015 at 06:56 AM.
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  11. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  12. #112
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    10,089
    Thanks (Given)
    18723
    Thanks (Received)
    8005
    Likes (Given)
    132
    Likes (Received)
    26
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9292005

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gabosaurus View Post
    The alleged "WMD" found in Iraq were decades old remnants of chemical stockpiles that were gained with cooperation with the U.S. during the Iraq-Iran conflict. There was nothing modern and certainly nothing that had been developed by the Iraqis.
    The WMD claims were lies perpetrated by the Bush regime in attempts to justify their invasion of Iraq. Nothing less.
    Heck Gabs I agree with this, they did get what they had from us, as for nothing being modern, well I also agree, these folks look like they are about 100 years behind time, but that would be the ugly in me speaking of course. But do you honestly believe that they would of took the time to hide the relics they had from us and left the stuff ( that no matter how behind times they are, I am sure they could at least upgrade the relics we gave them ) laying around,I mean no one is that stupid, it's a known fact we gave them weapons to keep Iran in check. But again 6 months bought them a lot of time to hide a needle in a hay stack, or better yet get them out of the country and into another terrorist hands.
    Never look down on someone unless you are helping them up

  13. Thanks Drummond, Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post
  14. #113
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,935
    Thanks (Given)
    4221
    Thanks (Received)
    4556
    Likes (Given)
    1427
    Likes (Received)
    1078
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gunny View Post
    Yeah. Just unless you're one the unlucky few they target. As long as it doesn't happen to you, right?
    But that isn't the question. Do they threaten our survival? No. Can they bring harm to some? Possibly, but that isn't a WWIII question and can be dealt with strategically.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  15. #114
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,561
    Thanks (Given)
    747
    Thanks (Received)
    2286
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2874951

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nonnie View Post
    If or when a World War III kicks off, who do think it will be against?

    If it's against the Middle East and the West, do you feel Bush and Blair are to blame?

    Will the Soviets side with the Muslim fanatics?
    Uh...Bush and Blair? Did you just arrive in the wrong decade from a wormhole contraption? lol

    Barack Obama is the one that has, singlehandedly, set in motion the "arab spring" that is ISIS and that has allowed the Muslime Brotherhood and Iran to run amuck in the ME. He's the one that's been pushing all the wrong buttons throughout the globe. And he's just getting warmed up.

  16. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot, Drummond thanked this post
  17. #115
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    47,599
    Thanks (Given)
    23850
    Thanks (Received)
    17373
    Likes (Given)
    9628
    Likes (Received)
    6080
    Piss Off (Given)
    85
    Piss Off (Received)
    10
    Mentioned
    204 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DLT View Post
    Uh...Bush and Blair? Did you just arrive in the wrong decade from a wormhole contraption? lol

    Barack Obama is the one that has, singlehandedly, set in motion the "arab spring" that is ISIS and that has allowed the Muslime Brotherhood and Iran to run amuck in the ME. He's the one that's been pushing all the wrong buttons throughout the globe. And he's just getting warmed up.
    I do believe she's hoping for ICC.


    "The government is a child that has found their parents credit card, and spends knowing that they never have to reconcile the bill with their own money"-Shannon Churchill


  18. #116
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In your head
    Posts
    23,935
    Thanks (Given)
    4221
    Thanks (Received)
    4556
    Likes (Given)
    1427
    Likes (Received)
    1078
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    39
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9173679

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DLT View Post
    Uh...Bush and Blair? Did you just arrive in the wrong decade from a wormhole contraption? lol

    Barack Obama is the one that has, singlehandedly, set in motion the "arab spring" that is ISIS and that has allowed the Muslime Brotherhood and Iran to run amuck in the ME. He's the one that's been pushing all the wrong buttons throughout the globe. And he's just getting warmed up.
    How did BO set in motion Arab Spring? I might argue that AS is the antithesis of ISIS.
    "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism." - A friend
    "You know the difference between libs and right-wingers? Libs STFU when evidence refutes their false beliefs." - Another friend
    “Don't waste your time with explanations: people only hear what they want to hear.” - Paulo Coelho


  19. #117
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Las Vegas
    Posts
    12,788
    Thanks (Given)
    7730
    Thanks (Received)
    7700
    Likes (Given)
    818
    Likes (Received)
    2832
    Piss Off (Given)
    8
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    42 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19919859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post
    How did BO set in motion Arab Spring? I might argue that AS is the antithesis of ISIS.
    Obama was instrumental in helping Egypt and Libya overhrow Mubarak and Gaddafi. He attempted to overthrow Assad, but was stopped (or is being stopped) by Putin.
    Obama sounds like a neocon in this instance.

  20. #118
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Posts
    119
    Thanks (Given)
    49
    Thanks (Received)
    97
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    401092

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DLT View Post
    Uh...Bush and Blair? Did you just arrive in the wrong decade from a wormhole contraption? lol
    Sorry, it's clear you didn't grasp the OP.

    Due to Bush and Blair's involvement with the ME, the Islamic terrorists have free reign.

  21. #119
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DLT View Post
    Uh...Bush and Blair? Did you just arrive in the wrong decade from a wormhole contraption? lol

    Barack Obama is the one that has, singlehandedly, set in motion the "arab spring" that is ISIS and that has allowed the Muslime Brotherhood and Iran to run amuck in the ME. He's the one that's been pushing all the wrong buttons throughout the globe. And he's just getting warmed up.
    He had "his people" go over there to kick start it off. Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  22. Thanks Drummond thanked this post
  23. #120
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    South Wales, UK
    Posts
    11,895
    Thanks (Given)
    20722
    Thanks (Received)
    8222
    Likes (Given)
    2213
    Likes (Received)
    1128
    Piss Off (Given)
    5
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    164 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    19319417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nonnie View Post
    Sorry, it's clear you didn't grasp the OP.

    Due to Bush and Blair's involvement with the ME, the Islamic terrorists have free reign.
    Totally the opposite is true. For as long as Bush and Blair kept momentum going on the War on Terror, terrorists were wrong-footed. What do you think Coalition forces were doing in the ME .. playing Tiddlywinks ??

    No, the real problems began with Obama, and his reversal of previous policy. Troop withdrawals led to the current situation. For as long as the very opposite to that was true, they were kept in check. And more than that, some were killed. Yet more were taken to Gitmo.

    You don't have a doctor prescribe medicine, medicine which keeps an illness in check, have a replacement doctor halt the treatment, then blame the PREVIOUS doctor if the illness then gets worse !!
    It's That Bloody Foreigner Again !!!

  24. Thanks Tyr-Ziu Saxnot thanked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums