LowerCaseRepublican

HSC, if the US has frozen these assets, then they have been frozen...if you have confidence in the US. Use these frozen funds to pay for a prison term for these f***twits. Come on, put them in an all female run prison and make them know that they're womens' b****es every day...and come on, using those funds for their own pain...wouldn't that be the ultimate irony? Hell it could even be a new reality show so we could watch them living in s***, lol and them paying for it. :**** Osama

LMFAO!!!! Bears this season are making me :puke

hehehe

Why aren't you amused at the first one? I meant it in jest, lol I mean, we all like to give food to the poor and stuff...why not do it on a bigger scale to help all the unfortunate, that is why I am liberal... the fact that women are 2nd class citizens in many societies, racism, sexism, etc....we're all one race, human, and we shouldn't let the random f***tards (i.e. Saddam Insane, Dubya, Daschle, Gore, etc.) through history try to factionalize us. I am sure that you'd all agree that HMO's are bulls*** and the such. We're all willing to help on small scales, why can't we do it on one large scale?

I am extremely pissed about what they did...but I think that a lifetime of being shat upon and getting dirty sanchez'es and hot karls would be a much greater punishment than any death could give them. and who says we gotta use the tax dollars....use the frozen al qaeda assets, hehehe. and besides, they wouldn't last 2 minutes in prison.

You don't think throwing these f***s in a prison where they'll get forced to be Bubba's girlfriend every day for the rest of their lives is torture? Come on, every day will be a living hell for them. They'd beg us for death...

Maybe this one for MikeSouth...?

Seeing how all this political jargon has got us all hot under the collar. I found it good if we all went and got some cereal. Here's a box i found (image courtesy of somethingawful.com)

whoops wrong picture.....:mad: here's the right one.

Right, but the citizenry and others in Iraq don't need to be held accountable. and if we are going after Al Qaeda, I'd like to see them caught and put behind bars. Let's invest our time in that while keeping a watchful eye on Iraq. Why not do both: stop Iraq from getting powerful and also go after and get Al Qaeda?

Strong Bad is the s***! Liberal or Conservative, Strong Bad is f***ing great!

YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THE MILITARY OR HOW ITS USED. EVERY TIME YOU OPEN UP YOUR YAP ABOUT US KILLING CIVILLIANS YOU DISPLAY YOUR OWN IGNORANCE. IF WE WERE TRYING TO WIPE OUT CIVILLIANS THEN IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN WOULD BE PARKING LOTS DEVOID OF LIFE. THE ONLY THING STOPPING US FROM KILLING EVERYONE IN THESE s***HOLES IS OUR DESIRE TO HELP THEIR PEOPLE AND TAKE DOWN THE f***TARDS THAT ARE IN CHARGE. THATS IT. YOU ARE JUST IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE NO MILITARY FORCE IS JUSTIFIED TO YOU. EVER. JUST A POINT OF CURIOSITY, WHAT WOULD YOU HAVE DONE TO RESPOND TO THE WTC ATTACKS IF IT WAS UP TO YOU? Nuke, I'd actually go after the people responsible (aka Al Qaeda) NOT Saddam. You yourself has admitted that we accidentally kill civilians during warfare and that it is a necessary vice. And Nuke, are we gonna help Afghanistan just like we did in 1989? You know, rid them of the oppressor and then just let them fight it out for control and let them install another Taliban like regime? The war on terror is just gonna be like the war on drugs...Remember that war when you couldn't buy drugs anymore after it was over? It's gonna be just like that!

Afghanistan harbored the 9/11 attackers...and if we want to get technical 15 of them were born in Saudi Arabia. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11! Do I need to scream this from the mountaintops? NAH, JUST JUMP OFF OF ONE. Aw, thanx Nuke.

bin Laden's millions from his parent's oil and construction companies that he inherited has funded his fundamentalistic militant regime for years. also, bin Laden is an Islamic fundamentalist extremist that is VERY religious. Saddam, on the other hand, if from a secular party and is not religious at all. In fact, many of the dissodent parties in Iraq are religious fundamentalist parties. Which shows that Saddam does not necessarily agree with bin Laden. So, the slaughter of innocent civilians that may not agree with Saddam's policies is OK with you HSC? I highly doubt that. You hate Saddam, however there are MANY people over there that hate him for what he has done to Iraq (i.e. many grassroots parties in Iraq that don't like Saddam but lack the effective political power to do anything about it) and people won't vote for them due to the backlash. A bombing campaign does nothing to oust Saddam, just kills people that obviously, Saddam doesn't give a flying f*** about. If Saddam is the big threat as he is seen to be, then NATO or the UN should get rid of him. If the US got off the 'he has nukes and biological weapons' campaign and moved to...'holy s***, he's f***ing the Iraqi citizens up the ass with a 12 ft. poll and totally violating their human rights, something needs to be done to get rid of his dumb ass', then a deposition of him could be possible with minimal bloodshed. I just take offense that the US is ready to rush in at the drop of a pin to depose him using bombs, DU, and nearly every weapon in our arsenal. I don't want to see any more Iraqi civilians die and I don't want to see US troops be forced to die for economic interests instead of the more imporant human rights issues in the Iraqi territory.

They can't let it go though HSC. The War on Terrorism has everything to do with oil and nothing to do with the WTC and Pentagon tragedies. Simply, Clinton is no longer in power. I had shown great disgust at Clinton as well for his bombing of civilians and use of massive military force in areas. I hate Clinton just as much as anybody. I don't want Bush to get the same innocent blood on his hands the same way that Clinton authorized it.

http://www.opensecrets.org/bush/cabinet.asp##1 Please, I ask that you take a look at these. It's a very interesting read.

Afghanistan harbored the 9/11 attackers...and if we want to get technical 15 of them were born in Saudi Arabia. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. SADDAM HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11! Do I need to scream this from the mountaintops?

They can't let it go though HSC. The War on Terrorism has everything to do with oil and nothing to do with the WTC and Pentagon tragedies. Cub, tell me what exactly Saddam did to perpetrate the WTC and Pentagon attacks, please. The fact is that Dubya is using "The War On Terror" to do whatever the hell he wants and get away with it using the dead of 9/11 as a f***ing carpet. Yes, I agree with you that Saddam is a f***. But explain to me how massive bombing strikes would kill him. It didn't work in '91, it didn't work with bin Laden, it didn't work when we tried in Libya, our bombing didn't kill Hitler....do we see a trend here? Also, am I just supposed to disregard the fact that Bush and his buddies are all huge oil company friends and the influence from that is quite the influence to invade Iraq. And HSC, I value the troops. I think I value them most by saying "Bring them home so they don't die and have to be remembered. I don't want them to die so Exxon and Texeco can produce cheaper oil." What happened the TWAT (The War On Terror) plan to get bin Laden and Al Qaeda top officials. So far we've captured a whole 0 top officials and the ones killed can be counted on 1 hand. Might it be that Bush and Co. didn't wanna look like they had egg on their face right before midterm elections and thusly decided to do what Daddy Bush did and threaten Iraq? I do agree that Saddam is a f*** and that he does need to be taken care of for what he is doing to his own citizenry, but not with a massive military attack that has not been provoked. You can claim that he has a nuclear arsenal, but a recent CIA report claims that with a very high probability, Iraq does not have nuclear capabilities. Yes, our CIA said that. Our veterans did sacrifice a lot. But a near third world country in the Middle East like Iraq poses no threat. They have no military, no nuclear arsenal...Bush just needs to swing out his militaristic wang and dicksmack somebody with it instead of dealing with our failing economy or dealing with the fact that he can't find Al Qaeda. Explain to me again how massive bombing strikes are gonna get one man. I'd really like to hear the explanation for that one. And Cub, if you really want the oil relationships between top Bush executives and the influence that oil companies are having on this war in Iraq, I'll gladly hook you up with some informational sources (don't worry NUKE, not leftist ones...it's a source that shows how much companies contribute to campaigns...they get this info via the Freedom of Information Act and just post it for political science research purposes...it's a very respected political science research site www.opensecrets.org)

I know, we supported terrorists then. And we continue to do so now.

I THINK THEY ARE. FUNNY HOW THESE HORRIBLE AMERICANS WHO BOMB CIVILLIANS & TRAMPLE ALL OVER THE POOR ISLAMIC PEOPLE ARE NOW OVER THERE REBUILDING THEIR COUNTRY & KEEPING THE FIRST PEACE THERE SINCE 1979. OOOOO WE'RE SOOOO TERRIBLE. Yes, and the Taliban is the same regime that we gave over $100 million. The same terrorist harboring nation...explain why we would support terrorism by giving the well known terrorist harboring nation money? Bush aids terrorism! Bush Bush you corporate whore We don't want your oil war!

Now that the Taliban is gone...don't you think that those people are going to be indebted to us? If you don't, then you my friend are the twit.

I SUPPOSE THAT DEPOSING THE TALIBAN WAS TO EARN ENRON A FEW MORE BUCKS. YEAH I THOUGHT THAT IT HAD TO DO WITH BUILDINGS GETTING BLOWN UP & PEOPLE DYING, BUT I HAD SIDESHOW TO STRAIGHTEN ME OUT ON THAT ONE. I'M ALL GOOD NOW. Oh yes, and we just happened to forget about the plans from 1997 that there was an oil pipeline to be build across Afghanistan that the Taliban didn't want. ...the business deals took place in Texas...and brace yourself, the lead corporation was Halliburton and Dubya was involved in courting the Taliban! Sounds economic to me, asshat.

DUMB f***, WE DONT BOMB CIVILLIANS, AT LEAST NOT ON PURPOSE. AND FUNNY, NONE OF THOSE COUNTRIES YOU MENTIONED (EXCEPT FOR AFGHANISTAN & IRAQ EVER POSED A THREAT TO THE US DID THEY? WE GO TAKE DOWN WHO THREATENS US AND OUR INTERESTS. YOU KNOW THIS, BUT YOU KEEP POSTING MINDLESS GARBAGE LIKE YOUR LAST POST. WHAT THE f*** EVER. IF WE'RE FIGHTING A WAR ON TERROR THEN WHY NOT FIGHT TERROR IN ALL FORMS? OR IS IT JUST THE TERROR THAT INTERFERES WITH US BUSINESS INTERESTS?

Yes, beat the s*** out of anyone who didn't like us...why must we be the world bully? Haven't we seen where bomb dropping has gotten us so far? Just more people hating us. Hell, Bush went AWOL and didn't fight and Cheney had "other obligations" instead of serving. I don't see how all you Hawks can admire him when our leader didn't even serve and ran out on his country in it's time of need. Think about that.

You do know that November 11 was originally known as Armistice Day, a day promoting peace after World War 1, right? Gandhi defeated the entire British army without using a single weapon and liberated all of India without firing a single gun. He knew that violence only breeds more violence. If we are going to get on the case that Saddam needs to be ousted because he is killing his own people then I have a few questions. Why don't we out the militaristic dictators in Colombia who are slaughtering peasant farm workers and church workers and labor unionizers? Why didn't we oust Augusto Pinochet in Chile when we knew that he was slaughtering thousands of people (including US citizens living in Chile)? Or Pol Pot in Cambodia? Or oust Roberto D'Aubuisson for being one of the orchestrators of an infamous citizen Central American death squad Batallion 3:16? Or oust the leaders that authorized the El Mazote massacre of 900 civilians (over 1/2 under the age of 12) in El Salvador? Or how about ousting Ariel Sharon for his actions in Sabra and Shatila in the 1980s? Why is the US so picky about which dictators it doesn't like? I mean, we obviously helped the Contras during the Reagan years and the Moujhadeen as well, so we must like some terrorists. Or how about killing the Israeli intelligence agency for allowing "Operation Wrath of God"? WHY IS THE US SO GODDAMN PICKY ABOUT WHAT IS TERRORISM AND WHAT ISN'T? and somebody explain to me how us bombing Iraqi & Afghan civilians can NOT be terrorism. we are using "weapons of mass destruction" to kill innocent people. Sounds like terrorism to me.