Reptile & Amphibian Forums

good deal!
-----
Brian Oakley
Phoenix, Arizona
BrianOakley@cox.net

have had loved ones killed by his regime have a go at him.....LOL.....it's good that he wasn't killed....he would have become a martyr to many....now it's time to buckle down on Syria.....

Thread has been moved from the ball python forum.
-----
_____

PHWyvern

n/p

It's interesting that Saddam started out as an OK guy. He implemented wide spread literacy programs in Iraq. (unlike the Al Qaeda and some others that try to rule by keeping women uneducated, etc.) Then he slowly turned into a monster. No America bashers ever seem to notice that he changed over the years. (Or they just won't admit it because it proves them wrong once again!) So what if America supported him when he was the best thing around back then? Things change, and with change, America's position also changed. If America continued to support him after he bacame a monster, or when he wasn't the best thing around, then you would have point to make!

Rodney

He started out as an ok guy? If you say so. The U.S. wanted a puppet well they got one, one that has cost lives on both sides.

He slowly turned into a monster? No he did it rather quickly yet the U.S felt in was in our best interest to leave their monster in and left thousands to die remember bushes daddy? Wrong again.

So what if he was the best thing around at the time? How many leaders have the U.S. helped gain power that were the best thing around then bit us in the @ss. Let's see, Iraq, Pananma, Chetnya, to name a few. Only when reagan and the bushes felt they could benefit.

This will be something to watch if/when the U.S. leaves Iraq as the puppet government in Iraq turns on your president as quickly as did the others..
Hmm, wonder how long before he decides to mess with N. Korea lol he won't no oil there only Nuclear missiles.

Question - What did President Clinton do to help the situation?
Eight years?
Please enlighten me I am ignorant.
Perhaps bad policy on both parts.
-----
RicK Denmon

Ball Boutique,Inc.

You sad right wing nuts. Why do you always have to refer back to Clinton? Get a better argument.

Who went back to Bush one? I believeit went back to Ronald Reagan and our concerns we had with Iran. Oh and BTW I voted for Harry Browne.
No need to call names or label me. Just the facts.

"He slowly turned into a monster? No he did it rather quickly yet the U.S felt in was in our best interest to leave their monster in and left thousands to die remember bushes daddy? Wrong again."
-----
RicK Denmon

Ball Boutique,Inc.

Now that everybody has proven that "Hindsight" is as far from 20-20 as anything else political. Since personally, I blame Pope Innocent for starting the Crusades...if you want to go back to the root cause of all this.... (lol). Instead of dishing the dirt, (that has allready been well spaded) how about speculation on where you all think this is going and what steps you think we should take?

Just curious.....(should I get a consignment of Lice Powder...or would it be cruel to send Saddam Grecian Formula?)

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Right nut why don't you get a clue.. Tried to keep it about the psot but your colorful use of words caused me to veer. If you learn to read you will maybe see where it was asked what about Clintons 8 years or did your dyslexia cause the lapse??

Looks like you need a copy of that you’re self. And here is an Idea, before you chime in with pointless post, do your homework.. and slow down, you would get less typos

Some of the hardest to read post come from jusmebabe. Just about the worst sentence structure I have seen on this forum. And then he criticizes others because they can't read his gibberish? I never would have commented on his poor english skills until he started criticizing others that write far better.

Rodney

Very good rodney. So now it's sentence structure. I didn't know this was an english class.

He said i brought clinton up. If you can read you will see i didn't. You say i criticized someones english again you are wrong.
If you have nothing valid to say about my comments then say that. Why digress?

BallBoutique mentioned clinton but i guess missing the point is easier the getting the facts right.

Sobek said you sad right wing nuts.
I guess that's good sentence structure and having a civil debate right rodmalm??

Bottom line is i didn't start calling you or anyone here names. If you can't debate without calling names fine.
If you have nothing to say regarding my post that's fine to just don't try and say i said this and that when the post is in front of you.. Your concerned about my sentence structure , you should be concerned about your ability to read what was said.
I guess the smog in San Jose is worse that believed.
Last thing professor rodney, if you can't debate say so, if you want to correct my sentence structure have at it...

>>He said i brought clinton up

Sorry babe I was not talking to you. I was replying to BallBoutique, and the way he "and the right" always tries to bring the spotlight back to Clinton. No matter what dubya does, its always Clinton did this, Clinton did that. A tired argument...

Are you a right wing nut? Or just a nut?

Just because the reply is under yours, does not mean it’s for you. And before you go off bad mouthing people, check ya self. Have you heard of a . or a , ???

I was pointing out to Rodney who claims i said certan things when in fact i didn't or claims i brought up clinton and
If I somehow mixed up something you said with one of their comments I apologize..
Unlike the structure obsessed guy in San Jose I know how to admit a mistake..

I have one question though, "HOW BOUT THEM COWBOYS"!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here is the URL for your exact post.

http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=278477,278752

Tell me you didn't make that statement and mention Clinton in it. Look again, it is in your very first line of that post! Probably just another mistake, but don't tell others you didn't mention Clinton when it is in your post. And don't tell other's that you never mentioned it and that I only claim this(making me look like a liar), when there is still proof of it on the thread for me to point to! I have no way to change what you wrote, and I wouldn't do so even if I could, so don't accuse me of that either!

As for mistakes, I make them too, no big deal. It was your criticism for both telling sobec and myself to reread/learn to read multiple posts of yours again because we couldn't understand what you wrote. While I understand there was a misunderstanding between you and sobek, when I reread another one of your posts, it said exactly what I was criticizing originally! Maybe you should reread it before you ask me to do so, to see if you made a mistake originally? Maybe you should reread it before you post it to eliminate these misunderstandings? Or maybe reread your old posts before you claim you didn't mention Clinton in them?

I'm a happy guy, no animosity here! But I do not like hypocrisy or people saying I claim something when there is readily available proof of it!

As for your statement I have one question though, "HOW BOUT THEM COWBOYS"!!!!!!!!!!!! While it really isn't a question with all those exclaimation marks, I love cowboys, too!---GO GEORGE BUSH, BUSH IN 2004 !!!!!!

Enough said again,
Rodney

Ok.....Guys HOW ABOUT THE PACK????? If you want to talk about a comeback, there's the team!

Personally, this election I may team my vote up for a classic western ticket...Struther Martin and Jack Elam. Now there's a pair of faces that could have changed Washington!(lol)
Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

Ok i'll enlighten you. Bush/Reagan made the mess and i guess it would be fair to say Clinton should've just envaded like Bush/Bush did.
Do you actually beleive that this country, or the United Nations would've approved a war without reason? If you do you are very naive.
Unlike Bush sr. and jr. former President Clinton wasn't going to bypass the U.N., congress, the american people, and world opinion to go to war (go to war for?).

I'm sure some would somehow like to dump the mess bush sr. got this country into in the lap Fmr. Pres. Clinton but he wasn't in office when Saddam was given power (because we were against Iran) and his hands were tied. If i'm correct bush jr. was playing gold when he gave the order to leave the Kurds to be slaughtered, impressive...
I hope i was able to enlighten you...

You said "Unlike Bush sr. and jr. former President Clinton wasn't going to bypass the U.N., congress, the American people, and world opinion to go to war (go to war for?)."

What? Congress and the vast majority of the American people supported this war. The majority of the American people still do, even though the numbers that support it have been falling a bit. (Unless you consider 90% in the beginning and about 60% today a minority--must be fuzzy math) The UN voted unanimously to take action against Iraq with 1441 and then backed out when it came time to act.

World Opinion? Are you only talking about the French, Germans, and Russians that are against it or just forgetting the nations that support it, like:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

And when Pres. Clinton bombed Serbia, did he jump through all the hoops you claim Bush didn't? Did he go to the UN? have world support? (Oh, I forgot, that doesn't count because he is a democrat and it wasn't Iraq!)

And your other post where you think we should not have supported the best thing around at the time? You wanted us to support the worst thing around? That would make you happy? Yikes, you are a scarrrrrrrrry person!

Think a little before you post nonsensical things that are so easily disproven and contradict themselves.

Rodney

romalm read again.. I said when Clinton was president the american people, congrass(not a typo) , UN would not have let him go to war with Iraq if had wanted to.. I said what would his reason of been?? Read it and then we can go on...
One other thing, funny how the economy was good for 8 years and when bush baby got in office it went to hell..
Funny when they want a war money magically is found or better yet go into futher debt.. But when we need money to care for our own some how we just don't have the funds..
Hell, they might as well steal the oil the set out to get in the first place via Haliburton and pay for this war instead of making bush and cheney's pockets fatter..

Well, I went back and re-read what you said. You wrote exactly this Unlike Bush sr. and jr. former President Clinton wasn't going to bypass the U.N., congress, the american people, and world opinion to go to war (go to war for?).

How did Bush jr. or sr. bypass they UN? They both went to the UN prior to both invasions. They both invaded based on UN resolutions.

How did Clinton not bypass them when he bombed Serbia? Did he go to the UN?

Then in your latest post you said One other thing, funny how the economy was good for 8 years and when bush baby got in office it went to hell..

What? Where are you getting this stuff? Did you learn it when you were getting your revisionist history degree at the University of Havana?

Go back and look at some Dow Jones records. It is clear that the market was going to hell for many months before Bush was elected. And most people know that when the market goes bad, it is because it is reflecting the economy going bad for a few months previous to that.

It is also obvious that the Economy took a real hit because of 9/11. Considering how long all the experts say it would have taken to plan such an attack, the attack was being planned while Clinton was in office! I wouldn't blame the attack on any administration, and I wouldn't blame an administration for a terrorist attack either. But to ignore the consequences of that attack on the economy, and then to blame those consequences on a specific administration is very ignorant.

And to ignore the amazing growth the economy is going through right now, because of Bush's tax cut, is also being very biased and close minded. I'm sorry so many facts are getting in the way of your rantings.

Think about it, if it doesn't give you a headache to violate your socialist training at Cuba's finest Univeristy.

Rodney

No problem. Just remember this today. I predict no chadd counting this election. Watch the market this week.
-----
RicK Denmon

Ball Boutique,Inc.

hummmm "BB" sounds like a stripper.....lol
Like the democratic candidates... They criticise Bush but do give out solutions. When Al threw his endorsement was like a kiss of death for the democratic party taking over the White House. Talk about ignorance.....would not even give his former running mate a courtesy heads up call.

"BB"
-----
RicK Denmon

Ball Boutique,Inc.

oh yea just right!
-----
RicK Denmon

Ball Boutique,Inc.