Oh how the worm turns.....

[MKSheppard]

There were huge layoffs, lots of homeless people, and tricky budget accounting
tricks during the Clinton years.......

Why is it that whenever a Republican is president, these people suddenly
"find" the homeless, the downtrodden, and evil corporate CEOs?

This one was actually quite good though. Reminded me of UNCLE JOE....

[Knife]

Because the left wing in America ran out of idea's about 20 years ago and have nothing left(no pun intended) but demigoggery and broad attacks using distortion and "fuzzy" math.

note: both parties in America are guilty of the above however the left wing, in my opinion, rely heavily on this tatic.

[Mr Bean]

As I heard today oddly enough the second time I listened to the Rush Program in the second week(Like or dislike him he has the funnest news of Politics, inculding yesterday in South Dakota as I have the full story now a large envolped was mailed filled to the brim with absentie ballet requests from the Local Democratic Office right? Well problem was there where over 300 requests, all signed up as Democrats but fourty of the 300 where dead, six did not exist and one had been in a Coma for the past six years)



Anyway anyway he said
Only now are we begining to Discover the harm that the Clinton years did to us
Its so funny to see these damn librals blaming everything on Bush, Quick Facts for you

In 91, Iraq had no Nuclear Weapons, Neither did Pakstan, North Korea, yet today NK annouces they have Nukes, Thanks to NUCLEAR MATERIALS BUSH GAVE THEM IN 94! For what? Appeasment, they wanted to test a missle that could have reached Californa or some such garbage and they did not have any weapons grade material for Nukes but ok, Here comes big Clinton, Heck boys we will give you the computers for those missles long as you promise not to test em PLUS Nuclear power plants which somone with a few years training and some money could convert into producing Nuclear weapons material!

Anyway thats what he said and though I don't like Republicans on many issues(I sure as hell don't like the Democrat Bullshit that has been pulled recently, thats not the only case of possible voter fraud these past few weeks)

Every single problem Clinton "Fixed" when he was president suddenly seems to be coming back to bite us on the ass, We struck at but did not Kill Osama, we invaded Kosovo(Without UN backing mind you which everyone seems to want now-adays), The Economey was starting to fuck up during Clinton's last years(Lets not forget all those 11th Hour Pardons he handed out)


Ugghh, American polticits just sicken me some days(I'm not an Indpendant, just want an Intellgent Representative, why I shake my head year after year when I go to vote)

[Admiral Piett]

In 91, Iraq had no Nuclear Weapons, Neither did Pakstan, North Korea, yet today NK annouces they have Nukes,

Iraq does not currently have nuclear weapons.Their nuclear program reached the peak just before the Gulf war.It is judged that at the time they were 6-24 months away from building a nuclear weapon.
Pakistan nuclear program is not exactly recent.The fact that they have "demonstrated" their capability recently does not mean that this did not exist before.Their nuclear program was already very advanced before 1991.They could have manufactured their first nuclear weapon in the mid 80's.

[Mr Bean]

Never said Iraq did, though they will trust me on this one, when you enemy has Nuclear weapons an a willingness to use them, any attack on thier country is destaned to MAD(The Destruction of your ground forces at least and the destruction of thier country which considering a Communist Dictator ship or Normal Dictatorship was happening the instant you put a man on the ground in thier country)

Pakistan however might have had Nuclear weapons as earily as the 80s(POSSIBLY) however all indications point that they got them up and in number in-between 93-95 but I'll take back the Paksitan example and remain with the NK and Iraq examples

OAN-There where supposdly UN inspectors in NK while they while they had this Nuke Program going on

[Sea Skimmer]

Never said Iraq did, though they will trust me on this one, when you enemy has Nuclear weapons an a willingness to use them, any attack on thier country is destaned to MAD(The Destruction of your ground forces at least and the destruction of thier country which considering a Communist Dictator ship or Normal Dictatorship was happening the instant you put a man on the ground in thier country)

Pakistan however might have had Nuclear weapons as earily as the 80s(POSSIBLY) however all indications point that they got them up and in number in-between 93-95 but I'll take back the Paksitan example and remain with the NK and Iraq examples

OAN-There where supposdly UN inspectors in NK while they while they had this Nuke Program going on

Pakistan almost certainly did not have nuclear weapons in the 80's. In fact there's some indication that for there string of five tests two bombs may have been supplied by China. The other three all fizzled. But I don’t know if that’s just speculation or has hard backing. Most likely the latter though.

MAD implies that both sides at least have sufficient weapons to make further organized conflict impossible after nuclear release. Given the tiny arsenals of both sides, that’s not true of India vs. Pakistan.

It is however true of Israel vs. everyone it borders.

[Mr Bean]

I ment MAD on the small scall Sea Skimmer
IE we would loose a good poriton of our troops that we sent in to try and "Disarm them" and they would loose thier country or more likley we would push ahead and not use a nuke aginst them

[Admiral Piett]

Pakistan almost certainly did not have nuclear weapons in the 80's. In fact there's some indication that for there string of five tests two bombs may have been supplied by China. The other three all fizzled. But I don’t know if that’s just speculation or has hard backing. Most likely the latter though.

When I said that they could have manufactured a weapon in the 80's I should have mentioned that was possible mainly thanks to chinese supplied weapons grade uranium.In anyway at the time the Pakistan nuclear program was already firmly established with indigenous isotopic separation plants (centrifuges) already built.

[Admiral Piett]

I ment MAD on the small scall Sea Skimmer
IE we would loose a good poriton of our troops that we sent in to try and "Disarm them" and they would loose thier country or more likley we would push ahead and not use a nuke aginst them

Depends on what you mean for "good portion".I may be wrong but I doubt that one or two nuclear weapons could kill a very large portion of,let us say,
an US Army invasion force in Iraq,which would be already on NBC alert.Identifying the position of the concentrations of enemy troops worth the expenditure of a precious nuclear weapon could be problematic.One of the many reasons for which the Iraquis did not use chemical warfare during the Gulf war was that they were not able to form an enough clear picture of what was happening on the battlefield.

[Mr Bean]

Yes because we have several countries from which to deploy from and several areas we could have invaded from

However if he buries them twenty feet under Bagdad say and has a few trusted fokes waiting for Bush/Co to show up or begin pacfication efforts and nukes his own city he could get a large group

That and or toss them at the Civies in Isreal or elsewhere

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

Seaskimmer:


I have to ask. What the fuck is wrong with your keyboard? Or is your lack of an apostrophe some sort of style?

If it is some sort of affectation, please stop, for the reasoned content of your posts carry the weight of your arguments better without such childish nonsence.

If you have some flaw in your keyboard, good god man, do you know how CHEAP no frills keyboards are? You probably spend more on sodas in a week.

[IRG CommandoJoe]

I always wondered wtf that was.

[HemlockGrey]

He prolly wrote it in word and then copied it here. The BB fucks it up.