May 1, 2003: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

[Traviesa 0]

You didn't say anything! I was waiting for the "your momma" jokes to start.

[Nessa 23]

The reason the illegals have chosen May 1 is because it is Mexico's "Dia de Trabajador" or Labor Day. If they were in Mexico they would have the day off. That's why they picked that day.

followed quickly by the anniversary of the news arriving about the titanic sinking, with the 15,000 jars of mayo that was to be delivered to mexico. hence the celebration of sinko de mayo

I'm not sure if that was supposed to be funny in that infantile style of humor or what your intentions were with that post, but I am definitely not amused by jokes about other countries' holidays.

apparently humor is wasted on you

I guess so...as much as I tried I didn't "get" it. Do you have any better jokes??

:lol: my love is making friends as usual i see

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

The reason the illegals have chosen May 1 is because it is Mexico's "Dia de Trabajador" or Labor Day. If they were in Mexico they would have the day off. That's why they picked that day.

followed quickly by the anniversary of the news arriving about the titanic sinking, with the 15,000 jars of mayo that was to be delivered to mexico. hence the celebration of sinko de mayo

I'm not sure if that was supposed to be funny in that infantile style of humor or what your intentions were with that post, but I am definitely not amused by jokes about other countries' holidays.

apparently humor is wasted on you

take more if necessary......

I guess so...as much as I tried I didn't "get" it. Do you have any better jokes??

try taking 2 midol and call me in the morning

I'll skip on the phone call...thanks!

[Traviesa 0]

:lol: my love is making friends as usual i see

It's nothing but love here on VJ. Nothing but love!!! Amidst all the you-know-what flinging we're all buddies again tomorrow.

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

for some reason my reply did not get submitted....it was supposed to say "take more if necessary. and such seems to be the case"

[KarenCee 3]

Anyone want to go for pizza?

[Nessa 23]

:lol: my love is making friends as usual i see

It's nothing but love here on VJ. Nothing but love!!! Amidst all the you-know-what flinging we're all buddies again tomorrow.

I was talking about Charles. Jeesh and i thought i was PMSing.

Anyone want to go for pizza?

i would love pizza yummy

[Fuzzness 2]

you guys are being stupid

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If they were in Mexico they would have the day off. That's why they picked that day.

I wish they'd pick that location, too. Go on, celebrate in Mexico.

Amidst the illegals sounding their horns, it has almost fallen off the radar that three years ago tomorrow, Bush declared The End of Major Combat Operations in Iraq.

As of that day, May 1, 2003, there were 139 fallen US soldiers. Minor combat operations since (there hasn't been any re-instatement of major combat operations to my knowledge) have claimed the lives of 2,261 more US military personnel. And it's far from over.

Anyone else thinking what I'm thinking? Odd timing of this illegal immigrant protest...

What, another conspiracy? Geez, ET, as time goes on I worry about you....

You ought to be busy worrying about your boy. I'm doing quite well, thanks.

And no, no conspiracy theory. Not from me. Just quite convenient that the third anniversary of one of the more embarrassing moments of this incompetent lot in the White House will have a different event in the forefront that the nation can focus on. Must be nice to be so lucky...

Edited April 30, 2006 by ET-US2004

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

If they were in Mexico they would have the day off. That's why they picked that day.

I wish they'd pick that location, too. Go on, celebrate in Mexico.

where can i sign up to help provide the one way bus tickets?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

also amazing is how people seem to have forgotten all about 911

i don't get it

The party line. The war on terror. Remember?

the party line? what are you talking about?

911 = Terror,

Terror = Iraq,

Hence:

War on Iraq = War on Terror

That party line. Bushco's party line...

are you making fun of Bush and his line of people?

i've been to iraq, saddam needed to be removed. now it's time to let them run their own country again.

Probably not a bad idea, but like Reinhard said, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

I really don't think anyone has forgotten about 9/11 but I still don't see a connection between the attack and Iraq

i didn't say there was one........

Bush DID however. His entire case for the war was presented to the public on the basis of 'imminent threat' to the US from Saddam Hussein. In fact they changed their story to simple 'liberating the Iraqis' and 'promoting democracy' ONLY after their original story was proved to be erroneous

They presented fraudulent, wilfully inaccurate intelligence information to congress and the senate. Colin Powell even presented an intelligence dossier to the UN security council which was copied verbatim from a PHD student thesis on the internet, which we know because the author himself came forward. There was even talk of suing for plagiarism...

Then there's that whole Downing Street memo that was under-reported in the US media, despite the fact that it proved fairly conclusively that Bush had a pre-emptive plan to invade Iraq that had nothing to do with any perceived national security threat - direct or otherwise.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Fishdude

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

also amazing is how people seem to have forgotten all about 911

i don't get it

The party line. The war on terror. Remember?

the party line? what are you talking about?

911 = Terror,

Terror = Iraq,

Hence:

War on Iraq = War on Terror

That party line. Bushco's party line...

are you making fun of Bush and his line of people?

i've been to iraq, saddam needed to be removed. now it's time to let them run their own country again.

Probably not a bad idea, but like Reinhard said, what did Iraq have to do with 9/11?

I really don't think anyone has forgotten about 9/11 but I still don't see a connection between the attack and Iraq

i didn't say there was one........

Bush DID however. His entire case for the war was presented to the public on the basis of 'imminent threat' to the US from Saddam Hussein. In fact they changed their story to simple 'liberating the Iraqis' and 'promoting democracy' ONLY after their original story was proved to be erroneous

They presented fraudulent, wilfully inaccurate intelligence information to congress and the senate. Colin Powell even presented an intelligence dossier to the UN security council which was copied verbatim from a PHD student thesis on the internet, which we know because the author himself came forward. There was even talk of suing for plagiarism...

Then there's that whole Downing Street memo that was under-reported in the US media, despite the fact that it proved fairly conclusively that Bush had a pre-emptive plan to invade Iraq that had nothing to do with any perceived national security threat - direct or otherwise.

that bush was given faulty intelligence is not to be blamed on him. try pointing fingers at the cia and others, who have the mandate to provide accurate intelligence. to blame bush for such is like blaming the owner of a gas station for the oil companies racking up record profits.

as for saddam posing a threat to the usa, did he not do that with his invasion of kuwait previously? (i shudder to think what gas prices would do nowadays given the current situation). did saddam not use chemical weapons on his own people? and we are to stand by idle while such occurs? did saddam ever renounce his claims to kuwait? nope........

yes, oil and our access to such is a national interest. as saddam had over 10 years to comply with un resolutions and balked and blocked such all the way, i'd say it's high time we did something. all saddam and his cronies did during their time was milk that country dry. just look at the palaces they found, while the average iraqi was starving. even the un food for oil program was a joke. and let's include saddam's sons, one of whom ran the security police in iraq, which caused many to disappear.........heaven forbid your daughter might catch that one son's eyes!

as for liberating the iraqis, that is fine with me. i've seen iraqis with one ear. no ears. all because it was saddam's decree that an iraqi soldier who did not follow orders would have an ear cut off.

having a pre-emptive plan to invade iraq, i'm sure we have such for many nations. it's called an "oplan" do the planning in advance rather than when it's needed, it saves time

so you can blame the president for this and that. fact is, he cannot be held responsible for false intelligence that is presented to him. the one to blame for that is our national intelligence agencies. perhaps what would be better is to call for their resignation.

[Fuzzness 2]

that bush was given faulty intelligence is not to be blamed on him. try pointing fingers at the cia and others, who have the mandate to provide accurate intelligence. to blame bush for such is like blaming the owner of a gas station for the oil companies racking up record profits.

not even close to being the same thing.

as for saddam posing a threat to the usa, did he not do that with his invasion of kuwait previously? (i shudder to think what gas prices would do nowadays given the current situation). did saddam not use chemical weapons on his own people? and we are to stand by idle while such occurs? did saddam ever renounce his claims to kuwait? nope........

yes, oil and our access to such is a national interest. as saddam had over 10 years to comply with un resolutions and balked and blocked such all the way, i'd say it's high time we did something. all saddam and his cronies did during their time was milk that country dry. just look at the palaces they found, while the average iraqi was starving. even the un food for oil program was a joke. and let's include saddam's sons, one of whom ran the security police in iraq, which caused many to disappear.........heaven forbid your daughter might catch that one son's eyes!

as for liberating the iraqis, that is fine with me. i've seen iraqis with one ear. no ears. all because it was saddam's decree that an iraqi soldier who did not follow orders would have an ear cut off.

having a pre-emptive plan to invade iraq, i'm sure we have such for many nations. it's called an "oplan" do the planning in advance rather than when it's needed, it saves time

so you can blame the president for this and that. fact is, he cannot be held responsible for false intelligence that is presented to him. the one to blame for that is our national intelligence agencies. perhaps what would be better is to call for their resignation.

if he wanted to "liberate" the iraqis, why didnt he just say so? why did they have to find a different reason to invade? why not just be honest from the start?

[Ban Hammer 13,678]

that bush was given faulty intelligence is not to be blamed on him. try pointing fingers at the cia and others, who have the mandate to provide accurate intelligence. to blame bush for such is like blaming the owner of a gas station for the oil companies racking up record profits.

not even close to being the same thing.

as for saddam posing a threat to the usa, did he not do that with his invasion of kuwait previously? (i shudder to think what gas prices would do nowadays given the current situation). did saddam not use chemical weapons on his own people? and we are to stand by idle while such occurs? did saddam ever renounce his claims to kuwait? nope........

yes, oil and our access to such is a national interest. as saddam had over 10 years to comply with un resolutions and balked and blocked such all the way, i'd say it's high time we did something. all saddam and his cronies did during their time was milk that country dry. just look at the palaces they found, while the average iraqi was starving. even the un food for oil program was a joke. and let's include saddam's sons, one of whom ran the security police in iraq, which caused many to disappear.........heaven forbid your daughter might catch that one son's eyes!

as for liberating the iraqis, that is fine with me. i've seen iraqis with one ear. no ears. all because it was saddam's decree that an iraqi soldier who did not follow orders would have an ear cut off.

having a pre-emptive plan to invade iraq, i'm sure we have such for many nations. it's called an "oplan" do the planning in advance rather than when it's needed, it saves time

so you can blame the president for this and that. fact is, he cannot be held responsible for false intelligence that is presented to him. the one to blame for that is our national intelligence agencies. perhaps what would be better is to call for their resignation.

if he wanted to "liberate" the iraqis, why didnt he just say so? why did they have to find a different reason to invade? why not just be honest from the start?

why does everyone think it was a conspiracy? he was given false info by the nation intelligence chiefs. and kinda difficult to say oops after the shooting starts. place the blame where it lies - on the cuban invasion agency.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

that bush was given faulty intelligence is not to be blamed on him. try pointing fingers at the cia and others, who have the mandate to provide accurate intelligence. to blame bush for such is like blaming the owner of a gas station for the oil companies racking up record profits.

First things first. The reason people blame Bush for the use of bad intelligence is because there is evidence that his administration cherry-picked the intelligence they used to justify a case for war. They picked the most sensational intelligence, which had the least credibility and that the intelligence agencies had the least confidence in.

That's been the whole focus of debate in the UK - sure blame the CIA if they gave 100% backing to a particular piece of intelligence, blame the administration if they did a PR exercise and chose the evidence they wanted people to believe.

as for saddam posing a threat to the usa, did he not do that with his invasion of kuwait previously?. did saddam not use chemical weapons on his own people? and we are to stand by idle while such occurs? did saddam ever renounce his claims to kuwait? nope........

Yes he did, no-one has denied that. Yet, once again we were prepared to more than tolerate him during the 70's and 80's - with the full knowledge that he was guilty of atrocities against his own people. In fact, the govts of the US, France and others sold him many of the weapons (including chemical and biological agents - hell France even sold the guy a nuclear reactor) which he turned on his own people and the people of neighbouring Iran. To give it some context, the US STILL SELLS WEAPONS TO DICTATORS AROUND THE WORLD - for all our moral postulating on fighting terrorism, and promoting democracy we are still prepared to export terror to other countries.

Furthermore, Saddam posed significantly less of a threat to us in 2003 than he did in 1991. His military was pitiful compared to what he had built up during the 1980's (with the US' help), so why is it people are so sold on the idea that the guy is somehow more dangerous contained than he was before? Its because exaggerated claims were made pertaining to his alleged WMD stockpiles and ability to use them. No conclusive evidence has been demonstrated that those stockpiles were present. In fact the only evidence that was presented has been shown to be inaccurate, exaggerated or blatantly plagiarised.

yes, oil and our access to such is a national interest. as saddam had over 10 years to comply with un resolutions and balked and blocked such all the way, i'd say it's high time we did something. all saddam and his cronies did during their time was milk that country dry. just look at the palaces they found, while the average iraqi was starving. even the un food for oil program was a joke. and let's include saddam's sons, one of whom ran the security police in iraq, which caused many to disappear.........heaven forbid your daughter might catch that one son's eyes!

Again - we didn't care about this until after the claims about 'threat to the US' were shown to be false. More than that, we continue to tolerate, bankroll and arm dictators the world over. Very few wars are started for purely noble, humanitarian causes - millions are dying in the Sudan (and were in 2003) - massive genocide is going on there. Why is it we are more concerned with Iraq I wonder?

having a pre-emptive plan to invade iraq, i'm sure we have such for many nations. it's called an "oplan" do the planning in advance rather than when it's needed, it saves time

But Bush claimed again and again and again that WAR WAS A LAST RESORT. It's been proven quite clearly that it wasn't (Downing Street memo).

so you can blame the president for this and that. fact is, he cannot be held responsible for false intelligence that is presented to him. the one to blame for that is our national intelligence agencies. perhaps what would be better is to call for their resignation.

Yes you can, when he accepted spurious (sensationalist) claims against the advice of agency officials who registered their reservations.

Edited May 1, 2006 by Fishdude