Russia cought with thier hands in the cookie jar

The_Neon_Cowboy · Jan 10, 2004, 05:20 PM

radar jammers and night vision glasses verified that they were sold by russia
that means russia has been violateing UN trade santions.....russia denies everything

so what happens next?

reno · Jan 10, 2004, 05:37 PM

We need to remove the Russian dictator Putin from his position of power. He is repressing his people, killing thousands, selling weapons to terrorists and is in control of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In order to secure the freedom that us Americans cherish and hold above the communist horde of godless terrorists, we must initiate a pre-emptive strike immediately.

If you aren't with us, you're with the terrorists.

~~bluelight~~ · Jan 10, 2004, 05:39 PM

Ahhhhh You have finally found the secret weapons!!!!!!!

Judas · Jan 10, 2004, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reno
If you aren't with us, you're with the terrorists.

this is exactly were you shouldn't be going with that kind of statement.....

GutterPunk · Jan 10, 2004, 06:36 PM

im glad something was found w/ russia... they are a fishy country

~~bluelight~~ · Jan 10, 2004, 06:46 PM

Fishy

Blue

GutterPunk · Jan 10, 2004, 06:56 PM

welp... i dont find that as fishy as russia... attacks like this will come out cuz the democrats want a lil power considering they lost a lot more districts in texas and have lost a share in congress

bird chest · Jan 10, 2004, 07:39 PM

Russia is probably the most corrupt developed country in the world. Over 70% of the businesses pay "protection" fees to the Mafia. All I am saying is I am not sure it is the governments intentions rather the most powerful mafia in the world that is doing this.

PoopyTheJ · Jan 10, 2004, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Judas
this is exactly were you shouldn't be going with that kind of statement.....

Where exactly ARE you supposed to go with that kind of moronic statement?

Judas · Jan 10, 2004, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by gaborn415
Where exactly ARE you supposed to go with that kinda moronic statement?

Think about it.... What the hell are you if your not on either side? saposedly neutral... but according to the statement.. your automatically the enemy... right?.... this is the most awful and rediculous statement that could every be brought up... in any war...

It should be that if you not on our side.... you not only a possible enemy.... but a possible ally....

digerati · Jan 11, 2004, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bluelight
Fishy

Blue

That article seems fishy.. Is ABC news liberal?

-----
"From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go," Mr O'Neill said in the CBS 60 Minutes program interview scheduled to be aired on Sunday.
---
I think anyone can agree he's a bad man, that sentence seems to be trying to paint us that we labeled him as a bad man from nowhere.

-----
The former treasury secretary and other White House insiders gave Mr Suskind documents that in the first three months of 2001 revealed the Bush administration was examining military options for removing Saddam Hussein, CBS said.
---
Invading a country isn't something you just do in a week. It has to be planned, way in advance just in case. If the people had not sided with Bush those plans would have been scrapped, if the president wanted Saddamn removed he should make sure he has plans to do so before he brings the idea to the public. I don't see a problem with that.

-----
Another Pentagon document entitled "Foreign suitors for Iraqi Oil Field Contracts" talks about contractors from 40 countries and which ones have interest in Iraq, Mr Suskind said.
---
If we were going to invade Iraq we needed to know who wanted/needed the oil, who could rebuild the oil fields if Saddamn lighted them on fire if need be (if much cheaper and equally capable as our own companies), etc. etc.

Please tell me if I screwed up anything or if I mis-understood something from those quotes or that article.

reno · Jan 11, 2004, 02:45 AM

The statement I said. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" was said by our President, George W. Bush in THIS SPEECH.

I was meaning that post as an ironic statement. Interesting how some of you reacted to something so many seemingly "support" in our country.

digerati · Jan 11, 2004, 03:51 AM

I may support the war, but I do not support that statement. Only idiots support that statement, and we have plenty of those here in America. With free speech becomes a lot of spoken stupidty.

Judas · Jan 11, 2004, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reno
The statement I said. "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" was said by our President, George W. Bush in THIS SPEECH.

I was meaning that post as an ironic statement. Interesting how some of you reacted to something so many seemingly "support" in our country.

i don't have or want anything to do with the war... let alone that president...

reno · Jan 15, 2004, 03:37 AM

But free speech is better than safe speech to me.

You know, I was thinking about this and personally, I would rather live with my rights to privacy and freedom of speech and choice and die in a terrorist attack than live in a nation where my rights are stripped away to protect me from such a threat.

What about you guys?