US Troops are not prepared for chemical or biological attacks - Say *NO* to War -

[musclebrains]

O'Reilly's stirring little column operates under the assumption that it is America's job to militarily interfere in the welfare of other nations and that there is a consistent promotion in that respect of our own democratic ideals. That, of course, is bullshit, since, for one example of many, we supported the murderous HUssein not so long ago, to say nothing of Pinochet and many other dictators.

The objection of the so-called peace community isn't to the promotion of humanitarian or democratic ideals but to the blatant indifference to them by the government under a guise to the contrary. North Korea has a history of abusing its own citizens that rivals Iraq's. But, of course, we can't intervene there because they have nuclear weapons.

And O'Reilly implies that Hussein was responsible for the anthrax poisonings in the States, when, of course, it is much more likely that Al Qaeda was to blame. But, of course, we can't hunt and destroy Al Qaeda, not having a state to call their home. Whatever happened to Bin Laden, anyway?

 

[danielson]

Good for you, but there are plenty of people out there who moaned & groaned "too many civilians will be killed", "it's all about oil (pipeline)", "it'll cause more terrorist acts to be committed", "freeing the people of Afghanistan has nothing to do with going in", "the war will spill over into other countries" etc...

Sound familiar? If you don't recall the peaceniks saying this crap, even after 9-11, go back & take a look.

theres always the odd hippie living out in some tree that says this



difference is the sheer numbers in opposition to the war in iraq. which means many against the war are political moderates, or your 'average joe'

as for whether the oil pipeline was constructed, ive not seen it in any news agencies, so whether its true or not i dont know. but even if it was true i would still support the war. the US indirectly allowed the taliban to come to power so i was overjoyed they smashed their regieme

 

[CanadianCripple]

theres always the odd hippie living out in some tree that says this



difference is the sheer numbers in opposition to the war in iraq. which means many against the war are political moderates, or your 'average joe'

as for whether the oil pipeline was constructed, ive not seen it in any news agencies, so whether its true or not i dont know. but even if it was true i would still support the war. the US indirectly allowed the taliban to come to power so i was overjoyed they smashed their regieme

Yeah, somehow the wingnuts have recruited many an "average joe" into their camp. Greeeeeeaata!

So what's wrong with the US, Britain & friends taking care of the mistake that is Saddam Hussein? You should be "overjoyed" they're going to smash his regime.

 

[FreakMonster]

And O'Reilly implies that Hussein was responsible for the anthrax poisonings in the States, when, of course, it is much more likely that Al Qaeda was to blame. But, of course, we can't hunt and destroy Al Qaeda, not having a state to call their home. Whatever happened to Bin Laden, anyway?

The anthrax came from a US Military Lab. It did not come from Al-Queda. This has already been proven. Where have you been?

 

[FreakMonster]

Time for some Bill O'Reilly:
-----

February 22, 2003
by Bill O'Reilly

A peace of the action

t.

Bill O'Reilly is a fucking joke!! I love the way Bill uses the term "working class." but he makes $4 million a year in a cushy office job and he didn't even come from a working class background.

 

[Little Ty]

Hold up, Saddam has chem and bio weapons?

 

[Frackal]

Wish I had the patience (or cared enough) to point out how simple minded & hypocritical that dribble is.

Like you or your kind would ever support a war while Bush is President. I imagine you'll all be ready to jump on the bandwagon if a Democrat is in the White House after 2004. Too bad people are using their distaste for Bush as a way of dertermining what should be done. "Bush is for it, so I must be against".

I'm starting to think you'll all get your wish & there won't be war in the next few months. I'm sure Blix will be able to keep things under control until then.

Point it out you narrowminded bitch...it amazes me how people like you are so simple, you can only see someone disagreeing with 'thepresident' as being a democrat... brainwashed pretty well, "ain't ya."

I can imagine in your little two-party fairy-world, anyone who does not follow in line with your thinking can easily be assigned a cliche label such as *gruff redneck voice* "goddamn treehugger" "anti-american hippie" "fuckin' liberal" .. and be brushed aside.

But aside from your idiocy in that respect, I am genuinely interested in what you have to say, so please refute at least a few of the things I said...if they are that wrong, it should be easy.

BTW, O'Reilly's column was fairly moronic...I dont know the guy, but I'm surprised it came from him..... wasn't our government the ones who called the khmer rogue "freedom fighters?" Also, is this guy kidding? Anthrax? LOL... the reason to invade Iraq is fear of nuclear weapons, not anthrax....this is straight from the administration... they are (supposedly) not as worried about bio/chem warfare as they are nuclear. And with as difficult as it is to make a nuclear weapon, I would think that drastically increased scrutiny of saddamn could delay it...but who knows, now that Bush has rattled his saber, it may already be too late.

Unlike some of us (re: uppertone) my views can be changed given the correct evidence... perhaps if our nation really knows something then we will reveal it a few days before going to war...who knows.

 

[Code]

Re: Re: US Troops are not prepared for chemical or biological attacks - Say *NO* to War -

The military has trained for NBC (nuclear-biological-chemical) warfare since the Cold War when the USSR presented a threat which makes the Iraqi one pale in comparison. NBC defense measures have continuously improved over the years. The military was prepared for the threat back during the '91 Gulf War and now 12 years later is even more prepared. Does this mean there will be no NBC casualties? Of course not, but this does not affect US resolve.

In short, the NBC threat is no news flash.

It's CBR, not NBC. Chemical, biological and radiological. At least that's what the US Army called it back in the Gulf War.

 

[Longhorn85]

Re: Re: Re: US Troops are not prepared for chemical or biological attacks - Say *NO* to War -

It's CBR, not NBC. Chemical, biological and radiological. At least that's what the US Army called it back in the Gulf War.

Are you speaking from experience? It has been NBC since I entered the Army in 1985. Not that it matters for the sake of this thread.

 

[CanadianCripple]

Point it out you narrowminded bitch

I didn't even read what you said beyond this. The "bitch" comment told me everything I needed to know about your level of intellect. A sarcastic comment or something witty would have been welcomed, but there is nothing as dumb as one guy calling another guy "bitch".