Crossing a Red Line

Actually I believe that you are quite good at giving uninformed opinions. So you admit that you and the other posters here are uninformed on the issue of WMD's in Syria, yet are offering critical opinions in regard to the President's handling of the situation.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Actually I believe that you are quite good at giving uninformed opinions. So you admit that you and the other posters here are uninformed on the issue of WMD's in Syria, yet are offering critical opinions in regard to the President's handling of the situation.

:rofllol Oh noes!!!! People without all the facts giving opinions.
You don't understand discussion boards do you?

Much better than people making policy decisions without all the facts, but every now and then it has to be done. Like the decision to use drones when you aren't 100% sure of the target.

WMD.......another scare acronym used by politicians to manipulate the sheep and media.

We the people are charging the scrawney little kid with using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION........where are these huge weapons ??.......they do not exist. Our brothers face IEDs daily and certainly these are not in the traditional sense WMD......this is a BS exercise. BUT the left wing nuts accuse simultaneously that Iraq had no WMD........hummmmmm is there a massive (pardon pun) inconsistency across the board.....?? WMD here to charge a scrawney kid and not WMD in Iraq if employed by the thousands......very convient .....if the Sheep buy iy.....probably not.

OR as slick may say....did say....."depends on what is ....is...." Gimme a break.

D,
I was a little shocked to have seen them charged with having weapons of mass destruction too. Since IED's like these were used in Iraq against our troops by Saddam's forces, the Iraqi's did have WMD's too?

Congress created a legal definition of weapons of mass destruction in criminal cases, but of course you knew that. That this definition is different than that as used in military actions which is chemical, biological, or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction. But then you knew that.

Something the Dog Said wrote: Congress created a legal definition of weapons of mass destruction in criminal cases, but of course you knew that. That this definition is different than that as used in military actions which is chemical, biological, or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction. But then you knew that.

Typical congressional sillyiness. So if a terrorist actually uses a chemical or biological bomb, would it be a super, duper, WMD?

The legal definition is BS.....so what. They traped themselves and destroyed their credibility..........deponds on what is....is......political toilet talk.

FredHayek wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Congress created a legal definition of weapons of mass destruction in criminal cases, but of course you knew that. That this definition is different than that as used in military actions which is chemical, biological, or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction. But then you knew that.

Typical congressional sillyiness. So if a terrorist actually uses a chemical or biological bomb, would it be a super, duper, WMD?

You mean the silliness that represents the GOP majority? I can't disagree there...

But I guess in the haste to start two unnecessary and unpaid-for wars, they decided to make the definition be whatever suited their program of starting wars.

But . . . . the war in Afghanistan was the "War of Necessity" - I know this because Obama said so and the elected representatives from both parties voted overwhelmingly to give the president the authorization he asked them for to use the armed forces of the Union. But you keep on keeping on with your revisionist history SFB. No one will believe it regardless of how many times you attempt to fundamentaly transform your lies into truth.

Name me one war that was paid for as it was being fought SFB. Just one from our history will suffice.

Don't you hate when your talking points come up against facts? Like Bill Clinton thought Iraq has WMD too.