It's Time For Liberals To Start Supporting America!

[glockmail]

Which signers? The ones that owned slaves? Those, too? Those are the people you fashion yourself after? Figures. Yup, those too. Burns your liberal ass, don't it? :laugh2:

[Doniston]

Screw you, Doniston. The last thing that I have ever been is a fucking sheep. I consider that an insult and you should take it back. :slap:

You are very quick to anger. This is the post that started it.:

Unlike conservatives, for whom the sheep herd is the model, most Liberals don't need "leaders" to speak for them....... he was speaking gererically not directly at you. and certainly I was not. I took it genetically. and as such,(in general)I find it true. You are consrvative in many ways, but I don't consider you to be a follower

and yes, since we fed sheep in the winter when I was kid on the farm. i know the inference. I will restate my opinion as follows,

MOST staunch Conservative do indeed act like like pack animals--- Carribo, Wilderbeasts, etc. One jumps and they all follow. so also do sheep. My comment was that altho he might be dilusional, he was also right "In general." that certainly was not an insult to you, and I really don't appreciate the "Screw you" comment. Now who is owed the appology????

[Doniston]

Bush has never been considerd a leader of the conservative movement. I certainly agree with that---- Reason, I don't think that pampered little schoolboy has enough smarts to have chosen a party to be loyal too, he just wans everyone to be loyal to him --- Because he is his Daddy's son. and he has a right.

[glockmail]

.....

MOST staunch Conservative do indeed act like like pack animals--- Carribo, Wilderbeasts, etc. One jumps and they all follow. so also do sheep. My comment was that altho he might be dilusional, he was also right "In general." that certainly was not an insult to you, and I really don't appreciate the "Screw you" comment. Now who is owed the appology????


That ain't true either. In fact, the opposite is true.

[glockmail]

I certainly agree with that---- Reason, I don't think that pampered little schoolboy has enough smarts to have chosen a party to be loyal too, he just wans everyone to be loyal to him --- Because he is his Daddy's son. and he has a right.
Bullshit. You are behaving like a liberal sheep.

[loosecannon]

Bush has never been considerd a leader of the conservative movement.

Then neither do ANY of the folks you claimed were leaders of the modern liberal movement.

Bush is the leader of the GOP for the last 7 years running. If he doesn't represent conservatives than there simply isn't anybody who could definitively be called the leader of the modern Lib movement.

You lose.

[loosecannon]

That ain't true either. In fact, the opposite is true.

No Bushbots are certainly sheep.

[Yurt]

No Bushbots are certainly sheep.

No sheep...

[Doniston]

Then neither do ANY of the folks you claimed were leaders of the modern liberal movement.

Bush is the leader of the GOP for the last 7 years running. If he doesn't represent conservatives than there simply isn't anybody who could definitively be called the leader of the modern Lib movement.

You lose. How do you aquate that??. I don't see the connection.

[Doniston]

Then neither do ANY of the folks you claimed were leaders of the modern liberal movement.

Bush is the leader of the GOP for the last 7 years running. If he doesn't represent conservatives than there simply isn't anybody who could definitively be called the leader of the modern Lib movement.

You lose. How do you aquate that??. I don't see the connection.

because there is no orange, there can't be an apple???

[glockmail]

Then neither do ANY of the folks you claimed were leaders of the modern liberal movement.

Bush is the leader of the GOP for the last 7 years running. If he doesn't represent conservatives than there simply isn't anybody who could definitively be called the leader of the modern Lib movement.

You lose.


No Bushbots are certainly sheep.

You're the loser, pal. As well as the sheep to George Soros.

Bush is the leader of the GOP- there is no affiliation with the conservative movement. Right now that movement is defined by the ideals of the late, great Ronald Reagan, and currently represented by Rush Limbaugh, R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr., et al. example: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/ Notice no one claiming Bush is a conservative?

Liberals, on the other hand, are proudly represented by Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Robert E. Byrd, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. Example: http://usliberals.about.com/ Notice how Hillary has a prominent role?

[loosecannon]

Bush is the leader of the GOP- there is no affiliation with the conservative movement.

OK fair enough then NONE of the dems are leaders of the fictional modern liberal movement that you describe. There simply is no such movement.



Right now that movement is defined by the ideals of the late, great Ronald Reagan, and currently represented by Rush Limbaugh, R. Emmett Tyrell, Jr., et al. example: http://www.intellectualconservative.com/ Notice no one claiming Bush is a conservative?


Rush defines modern conservatives? You really are a few bricks short of a load aren't you. Rush is a reactionary like Bush.


Liberals, on the other hand, are proudly represented by Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Robert E. Byrd, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. Example: http://usliberals.about.com/ Notice how Hillary has a prominent role?

Hypocritical bullshit to which I retort, if that is true than BUSH is the proud leader of the conservative movement. Bushbot!

Hillary is a republican neocon dipshit!

So is Lieberman.

[fightingirishgirl4life]

Liberals will not be completely happy until we are a third world country...Then once they get us there they will then turn right back around and blame it on everyone else...They are disgusted about the war because they see that there are actually still people out there that are willing to die for this country and until they can stop that they will never get there wish..

[nevadamedic]

Liberals will not be completely happy until we are a third world country...Then once they get us there they will then turn right back around and blame it on everyone else...They are disgusted about the war because they see that there are actually still people out there that are willing to die for this country and until they can stop that they will never get there wish..

:clap: :laugh2: :clap:

[lily]

Liberals will not be completely happy until we are a third world country...Then once they get us there they will then turn right back around and blame it on everyone else...They are disgusted about the war because they see that there are actually still people out there that are willing to die for this country and until they can stop that they will never get there wish..

Wow........that's deep.:salute:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

And completely stupid.

[Psychoblues]

Without a doubt.



And completely stupid.

[stephanie]

Well....That was nice of you three.....on the persons first post...

What.... no welcome to the board....sheeesh





Anyway...welcome Fightinirish.

[Psychoblues]

You nailed my butt on that one, stephanie.



Well....That was nice of you three.....on the persons first post...

What.... no welcome to the board....sheeesh






Anyway...welcome Fightinirish.

I'm usually more observant than that and I do like to welcome new members. I'm takin' back all that ol' stuff I been sayin' about you.

Welcome to the DP board, fightingirishgirl4life!!!!!!!!! I'm a fightingamericanman4life but I go by Psychoblues. Hope to see more of you on the boards and above all else I hope you're having a GREAT time!!!!!!!!

[glockmail]

Well....That was nice of you three.....on the persons first post...

What.... no welcome to the board....sheeesh





Anyway...welcome Fightinirish.
She got a boatload of pos rep as well. Gotta be the highest point/post ratio evah!

[loosecannon]

Liberals will not be completely happy until we are a third world country


You are speaking about globalists and republican corporatists not liberals, dems or progressives.

The race to the bottom is sponsored by Walmart.

[loosecannon]

She got a boatload of pos rep as well. Gotta be the highest point/post ratio evah!

hmmm maybe I should start posting really stupid shit and see what it does for my rep.......

Bush is one of the lizard people!!!
(give me some rep!!!)

[Dilloduck]

You are speaking about globalists and republican corporatists not liberals, dems or progressives.

The race to the bottom is sponsored by Walmart.

Right-there are no democrat corporatists involved. Still can't let go of that partianship can ya ? :laugh2:

[loosecannon]

Right-there are no democrat corporatists involved. Still can't let go of that partianship can ya ? :laugh2:

The only two demo corporatists i know of are named Clinton. Whereas the ideology has been promoted by the GOP for 30 years.

I was responding to a rabidly partisan post.

[Dilloduck]

The only two demo corporatists i know of are named Clinton. Whereas the ideology has been promoted by the GOP for 30 years.

I was responding to a rabidly partisan post.

Let me help you here a bit

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/09/1071/

http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber06162006.html

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/05/over-dozen-corporate-democrats-in.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/25/142943/110

[loosecannon]

Let me help you here a bit

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/09/1071/

http://www.counterpunch.org/mokhiber06162006.html

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/05/over-dozen-corporate-democrats-in.html

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/25/142943/110

Thanks DD, that was a big help in understanding how the dems have become so imbedded with Pres supplemental budget without limits, passed his original use of force authorization and generally whoosed out almost universally for the last 6 years.

The dems don't stand for anything but republican light these days. I knew Hillary and Lieberman weren't real dems. Maybe most of them are some new hybrid.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The dems don't stand for anything but republican light these days. I knew Hillary and Lieberman weren't real dems. Maybe most of them are some new hybrid.

And they certainly aren't Liberals. Liberals support the troops in the best way possible: they want to bring them home.

[glockmail]

And they certainly aren't Liberals. Liberals support the troops in the best way possible: they want to bring them home. Yet most would rather stay where they are and finish their job.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Yet most would rather stay where they are and finish their job.

And the numbers say you are completely wrong:


The American military — once a staunch supporter of President Bush and the Iraq war — has grown increasingly pessimistic about chances for victory, according to the 2006 Military Times Poll.

For the first time, more troops disapprove of the president’s handling of the war than approve of it. Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the president is handling the war.

When the military was feeling most optimistic about the war — in 2004 — 83 percent of poll respondents thought success in Iraq was likely. This year, that number has shrunk to 50 percent.

Only 35 percent of the military members polled this year said they approve of the way President Bush is handling the war, while 42 percent said they disapproved. The president’s approval rating among the military is only slightly higher than for the population as a whole. In 2004, when his popularity peaked, 63 percent of the military approved of Bush’s handling of the war. While approval of the president’s war leadership has slumped, his overall approval remains high among the military.

Just as telling, in this year’s poll only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place, down from 65 percent in 2003. That closely reflects the beliefs of the general population today — 45 percent agreed in a recent USA Today/Gallup poll.link (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/)

When you lose the support of the military who is fighting your war, you lose period.

[Gunny]

And they certainly aren't Liberals. Liberals support the troops in the best way possible: they want to bring them home.

Liberals like you support partisan political victory at the expense of this nation. Doesn't matter to you what's in our best interest so long as you can claim some usually sorry-ass and despicable "W" in the "D" column.

No troop I ever knew of besides the usual 10% of whom I am sure YOU belonged EVER considered being pulled off a mission before it was complete as being supported in ANY way.

[glockmail]

And the numbers say you are completely wrong:

link (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/)

When you lose the support of the military who is fighting your war, you lose period.

There is a difference between having a difference of opinion and not wanting to do their job. Unlike you and your lib buddies, our troops have honor and sense of duty, and they want to stay and finish their jobs.

[Doniston]

There is a difference between having a difference of opinion and not wanting to do their job. Unlike you and your lib buddies, our troops have honor and sense of duty, and they want to stay and finish their jobs. That is correct---in a way. Their job is to follow orders, for Good, bad, or indifferent. That doesn't necessarily mean that they think their orders are right.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

There is a difference between having a difference of opinion and not wanting to do their job.

Their job is to stay alive and get home. If you think it is anything else in this conflict you are seriously deluded.


Unlike you and your lib buddies, our troops have honor and sense of duty, and they want to stay and finish their jobs.

Me and my Liberal friends SERVED our country unlike you and your chickenhawk buddies who never saw a war they didn't like but never found the time to actually do any of the fighting. The sense of honor and duty comes from fighting for an honorable cause, not referreeing a civil war.

[Dilloduck]

Their job is to stay alive and get home. If you think it is anything else in this conflict you are seriously deluded.



Me and my Liberal friends SERVED our country unlike you and your chickenhawk buddies who never saw a war they didn't like but never found the time to actually do any of the fighting. The sense of honor and duty comes from fighting for an honorable cause, not referreeing a civil war.


Their job is to stay alive and get home.

What kind of ignorant statement is that ? Their job consists of way more than staying alive. Show them some respect by giving them credit for the incredible amount of work they do.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Liberals like you support partisan political victory at the expense of this nation. Doesn't matter to you what's in our best interest so long as you can claim some usually sorry-ass and despicable "W" in the "D" column.

Your partisan attitude has blinded you to the truth of this war, Gunny, and it's really sad to see. Your Boy George sees that he is losing this conflict all the way around now and is bringing back the big Boogieman to scare us all: Osama bin Laden. After stating that he doesn't know where he is and doesn't care because he is irrelevant and ignoring him for years, he now brings him up 11 times in one speech and tries to salvage a failed policy of a failed war in a failed presidency. The only sorry ass and despicable position is that of failed leader and the morons who still march in lockstep to the Stay The Course drumbeat.

You are too stupid to see there is no victory in this war. Getting our troops home alive is our only victory. The Endless War on terrorism has begun and you are totally clueless to our real position. You keep sitting there cheering for victory when in reality the only choices are War Continues or War Ends.


No troop I ever knew of besides the usual 10% of whom I am sure YOU belonged EVER considered being pulled off a mission before it was complete as being supported in ANY way.

You could never have been more wrong but then that's par for the course for your blindly partisan dumbass self. Who are you going to believe more: me or a troop in the field? You are going to believe a troop in the field, of course. So do I.


BAGHDAD — Staff Sgt. David Safstrom does not regret his previous tours in Iraq, not even a difficult second stint when two comrades were killed while trying to capture insurgents.

“In Mosul, in 2003, it felt like we were making the city a better place,” he said. “There was no sectarian violence, Saddam was gone, we were tracking down the bad guys. It felt awesome.”

But now on his third deployment in Iraq, he is no longer a believer in the mission. The pivotal moment came, he says, this February when soldiers killed a man setting a roadside bomb. When they searched the bomber’s body, they found identification showing him to be a sergeant in the Iraqi Army.

“I thought: ‘What are we doing here? Why are we still here?’ ” said Sergeant Safstrom, a member of Delta Company of the First Battalion, 325th Airborne Infantry, 82nd Airborne Division. “We’re helping guys that are trying to kill us. We help them in the day. They turn around at night and try to kill us.”

His views are echoed by most of his fellow soldiers in Delta Company, renowned for its aggressiveness. link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/world/middleeast/28delta.html?ex=1338004800&en=3bd9909b23969f9b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

How many deployments will be enough Gunny? How many times do we recycle troops thru the war before they come back ruined and worthless to the defense of our country? How long do you cut corners on their medical benefit to further fund the war? How long do you refuse to bring replacement weaponry into the conflict because your budget doesn't call for it and further risk the lives of more troops? How long do you continue to fight a war on the cheap that doesn't kill vast numbers of our troops but makes them mentally worthless after a half dozen tours in the war further reducing the capability to defend our own borders? How long, Gunny?

[Baron Von Esslingen]

What kind of ignorant statement is that ? Their job consists of way more than staying alive. Show them some respect by giving them credit for the incredible amount of work they do.

Sorry if the truth offends you, Mr War Hawk, but when you are in the middle of a civil war that your leadership fails to recognize but the troops on the ground see all too well, your job is to stay alive until your ass gets rotated out of the war zone because very little of what you do (outside of killing people who are shooting at you) accomplishes the "goal" of subduing the insurgency. Military solutions are only one part of the equation but they are the only part that your Boy George is working on and it is failing. Political and economic solutions are being ignored and we are paying for it with the lives of our troops.

Go back and show me where I have shown anything other than respect for our troops, asshole, and the tremendous job they do before you try and smear me with that neocon bullshit of yours. Bring the link and the quote or shut the fuck up.

[Dilloduck]

Your partisan attitude has blinded you to the truth of this war, Gunny, and it's really sad to see. Your Boy George sees that he is losing this conflict all the way around now and is bringing back the big Boogieman to scare us all: Osama bin Laden. After stating that he doesn't know where he is and doesn't care because he is irrelevant and ignoring him for years, he now brings him up 11 times in one speech and tries to salvage a failed policy of a failed war in a failed presidency. The only sorry ass and despicable position is that of failed leader and the morons who still march in lockstep to the Stay The Course drumbeat.

You are too stupid to see there is no victory in this war. Getting our troops home alive is our only victory. The Endless War on terrorism has begun and you are totally clueless to our real position. You keep sitting there cheering for victory when in reality the only choices are War Continues or War Ends.



You could never have been more wrong but then that's par for the course for your blindly partisan dumbass self. Who are you going to believe more: me or a troop in the field? You are going to believe a troop in the field, of course. So do I.

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/world/middleeast/28delta.html?ex=1338004800&en=3bd9909b23969f9b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

How many deployments will be enough Gunny? How many times do we recycle troops thru the war before they come back ruined and worthless to the defense of our country? How long do you cut corners on their medical benefit to further fund the war? How long do you refuse to bring replacement weaponry into the conflict because your budget doesn't call for it and further risk the lives of more troops? How long do you continue to fight a war on the cheap that doesn't kill vast numbers of our troops but makes them mentally worthless after a half dozen tours in the war further reducing the capability to defend our own borders? How long, Gunny?

I guess all our troops efforts to stop jihadist activities overseas will come to an end when an if the congress stops funding it.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I guess all our troops efforts to stop jihadist activities overseas will come to an end when an if the congress stops funding it.

I guess you can post any kind of lame ass Strawman you want to make points in a game where the points don't matter.

[Dilloduck]

Sorry if the truth offends you, Mr War Hawk, but when you are in the middle of a civil war that your leadership fails to recognize but the troops on the ground see all too well, your job is to stay alive until your ass gets rotated out of the war zone because very little of what you do (outside of killing people who are shooting at you) accomplishes the "goal" of subduing the insurgency. Military solutions are only one part of the equation but they are the only part that your Boy George is working on and it is failing. Political and economic solutions are being ignored and we are paying for it with the lives of our troops.

Go back and show me where I have shown anything other than respect for our troops, asshole, and the tremendous job they do before you try and smear me with that neocon bullshit of yours. Bring the link and the quote or shut the fuck up.

You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.The adminstration is fully aware of the precarious situation in Iraq due to sectarian hostilities and CONTINUAL diplomatic efforts are being made to bring hostilities under control. I already gave you your quote

Their job is to stay alive and get home.

A prime example of your ignorance------you think that the mission of the troops is nothing but hiding.

[Dilloduck]

I guess you can post any kind of lame ass Strawman you want to make points in a game where the points don't matter.

The WOT ain't about points. If you're pissed that your congress is now an accomplice, blame them.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The WOT ain't about points. If you're pissed that your congress is now an accomplice, blame them.

Nope. It ain't about the points but you keep trying to score points with Strawmen on matters that you have extrapolated from my arguments.

[Gunny]

Your partisan attitude has blinded you to the truth of this war, Gunny, and it's really sad to see. Your Boy George sees that he is losing this conflict all the way around now and is bringing back the big Boogieman to scare us all: Osama bin Laden. After stating that he doesn't know where he is and doesn't care because he is irrelevant and ignoring him for years, he now brings him up 11 times in one speech and tries to salvage a failed policy of a failed war in a failed presidency. The only sorry ass and despicable position is that of failed leader and the morons who still march in lockstep to the Stay The Course drumbeat.

You need to read more. I may have an attitude, but it certainly isn't partisan. I don't like either side. I DO however dislike YOUR side MORE than the other.

And the rest of your paragraph is a perfect example of why. A completely unsupported by anything but a partisan imagination accusation. It is also evidence that even when Bush does what you bitch about him not doing, he STILL can't win. You have to paint it as something ugly.

You are too stupid to see there is no victory in this war. Getting our troops home alive is our only victory. The Endless War on terrorism has begun and you are totally clueless to our real position. You keep sitting there cheering for victory when in reality the only choices are War Continues or War Ends.

I would say "stupid" would apply to the author of the above paragraph since you really have NO idea where I stand on the issues of "victory" and "our position." You only know that I disagree with where you repeatedly have stated YOU stand. In your black-or-white only mind, it's either your way or wrong.


You could never have been more wrong but then that's par for the course for your blindly partisan dumbass self. Who are you going to believe more: me or a troop in the field? You are going to believe a troop in the field, of course. So do I.

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/world/middleeast/28delta.html?ex=1338004800&en=3bd9909b23969f9b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

How many deployments will be enough Gunny? How many times do we recycle troops thru the war before they come back ruined and worthless to the defense of our country? How long do you cut corners on their medical benefit to further fund the war? How long do you refuse to bring replacement weaponry into the conflict because your budget doesn't call for it and further risk the lives of more troops? How long do you continue to fight a war on the cheap that doesn't kill vast numbers of our troops but makes them mentally worthless after a half dozen tours in the war further reducing the capability to defend our own borders? How long, Gunny?

How many left-wing-extremists in how many message boards are going to keep spamming this same article as if one Army SSgt's opinion reflects the opinions of all?

How long do you continue to regurgitate the same baseless talking points?

You do however many deployments is necessary and you stay as long is takes to accomplish the mission.

The fact you are willing to toss in the towel and give up because things aren't just running as smooth as possible the way you want is your business ... until you presume to want to do it in the name of this Nation. THEN it becomes MINE.

I don't share your fair-weather loser mentality. When you start a job, you finish it, period. You may have to adjust to the unforeseen and/or changing dynamics and you may have to adjust your goals because of the same, but if you quit before you're done, you're nothing but a loser in my book. Perhaps you have no problem with being viewed as such as an American, but I do.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Go back and show me where I have shown anything other than respect for our troops, asshole, and the tremendous job they do before you try and smear me with that neocon bullshit of yours. Bring the link and the quote or shut the fuck up.


You wouldn't know the truth if it bit you in the ass.The adminstration is fully aware of the precarious situation in Iraq due to sectarian hostilities and CONTINUAL diplomatic efforts are being made to bring hostilities under control. I already gave you your quote

You still didn't bring the link and the quote where I was disrespectful of the troops. You can repeat that lie a thousand times and it is still a lie. Your neocon smears don't work anymore, boy. Try debating what I have actually said instead of what you think I said. The only thing that is biting anyone in the ass is supporting a failed policy in a failed war from a failed presidency.


A prime example of your ignorance------you think that the mission of the troops is nothing but hiding.

Again, asswad, go back and show me where I said the troops are hiding. You are really a piece of work.

[Dilloduck]

You still didn't bring the link and the quote where I was disrespectful of the troops. You can repeat that lie a thousand times and it is still a lie. Your neocon smears don't work anymore, boy. Try debating what I have actually said instead of what you think I said. The only thing that is biting anyone in the ass is supporting a failed policy in a failed war from a failed presidency.



Again, asswad, go back and show me where I said the troops are hiding. You are really a piece of work.


Their job is to stay alive and get home.

This statement is false and simplistic. It neglects the missions that troops are sent on every day.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You need to read more. I may have an attitude, but it certainly isn't partisan. I don't like either side. I DO however dislike YOUR side MORE than the other.

I read what you bring to this and every argument that I am involved in. Your blind support of this war puts you in a partisan camp whether you want to be there or not. I have an attitude as well and it was against this ill-founded war from the start. Fuck, even Poppy Bush had more sense not to tread where Doofus Junior chose to go. Look what it got us. An Endless War where the "goal line" changes according to how the partisan winds are blowing.


And the rest of your paragraph is a perfect example of why. A completely unsupported by anything but a partisan imagination accusation. It is also evidence that even when Bush does what you bitch about him not doing, he STILL can't win. You have to paint it as something ugly.

Bush hasn't stopped the war so I will bitch until he does.


I would say "stupid" would apply to the author of the above paragraph since you really have NO idea where I stand on the issues of "victory" and "our position." You only know that I disagree with where you repeatedly have stated YOU stand. In your black-or-white only mind, it's either your way or wrong.

Your amateur psychoanalysis of me and my views is amusing. Wrong, but still amusing.


How many left-wing-extremists in how many message boards are going to keep spamming this same article as if one Army SSgt's opinion reflects the opinions of all?

How many times have we seen you and your amigos do exactly the same thing when one of those "you don't know what kind of successes we have had over here" articles shows up in some local media? Pot meet kettle.


How long do you continue to regurgitate the same baseless talking points?

I would ask you the very same thing.


You do however many deployments is necessary and you stay as long is takes to accomplish the mission.

What exactly is the mission again? Weapons of mass destruction? Removing Saddam? Nuclear weapons? What is the mission TODAY, Gunny?


The fact you are willing to toss in the towel and give up because things aren't just running as smooth as possible the way you want is your business ... until you presume to want to do it in the name of this Nation. THEN it becomes MINE.

Nice strawman.


I don't share your fair-weather loser mentality. When you start a job, you finish it, period. You may have to adjust to the unforeseen and/or changing dynamics and you may have to adjust your goals because of the same, but if you quit before you're done, you're nothing but a loser in my book. Perhaps you have no problem with being viewed as such as an American, but I do.

Don't quit your day job, whatever it is, because your new profession as Amateur Psychoanalysist isn't cutting it.

This war was a cluster fuck from the beginning and when every stated "goal" was missed, new "goals" became the objective. This is a the classic bait-and-switch. Sorry you fell for it. I refused to play the game from the outset because I refused to accept the parameters of the game knowing full well there was no reasonable outcome to benefit either ourselves or the Iraqis.

Your claim that if you quit before you are done you are a loser doesn't apply if the game is rigged against you before it even begins. If you follow a rigged game to it's disasterous conclusion, you are an idiot.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

This statement is false and simplistic. It neglects the missions that troops are sent on every day.

I can't make it any simpler than that.

You again failed to support the Strawman you threw at me. You failed to show how my saying that the job is to stay alive and come home is "hiding" or that it "neglects" the missions or any other such thing. Stop arguing with yourself and either put up the link that you claimed I said I was DISRESPECTFUL of the troops. Don't pull some neocon asswash out of your rear end. Post the actual link.

[Gunny]

I read what you bring to this and every argument that I am involved in. Your blind support of this war puts you in a partisan camp whether you want to be there or not. I have an attitude as well and it was against this ill-founded war from the start. Fuck, even Poppy Bush had more sense not to tread where Doofus Junior chose to go. Look what it got us. An Endless War where the "goal line" changes according to how the partisan winds are blowing.

If you read what I post, then how do you get your translation out of "I do not now nor have I believed since 1991 that removing Saddam Hussein from power was the strategically correct move?" You can search if you want, but you will not find a post by me that contradicts that stance.

And while you're being so smart, DO tell me EXACTLY what my "blind support for this war" entails. Feel free to fill me in on all the details of what my stance is on it.

Bush hasn't stopped the war so I will bitch until he does.

Bitching and making false accusations are two different things.



Your amateur psychoanalysis of me and my views is amusing. Wrong, but still amusing.

I don't have to psychoanalyze anything. You put the shit right out here for everyone to read on a daily basis. Not the slightest guesswork required.

And your deflective insult does not address the statement I made at all.

How many times have we seen you and your amigos do exactly the same thing when one of those "you don't know what kind of successes we have had over here" articles shows up in some local media? Pot meet kettle.

Prove it. The evidence that supports my statment is your posting the link. Now find one I have posted that meets your little criteria above.



I would ask you the very same thing.

Why? I have yet to state one.



What exactly is the mission again? Weapons of mass destruction? Removing Saddam? Nuclear weapons? What is the mission TODAY, Gunny?

The mission today is the same as it has been since Day One. Remove Saddam from power and install a democratic government and remian until it can stand on its own.

Your attempts to say it's anything else are just that ... mere attempts.


Nice strawman.

Poor deflection.


Don't quit your day job, whatever it is, because your new profession as Amateur Psychoanalysist isn't cutting it.

This war was a cluster fuck from the beginning and when every stated "goal" was missed, new "goals" became the objective. This is a the classic bait-and-switch. Sorry you fell for it. I refused to play the game from the outset because I refused to accept the parameters of the game knowing full well there was no reasonable outcome to benefit either ourselves or the Iraqis.

Your claim that if you quit before you are done you are a loser doesn't apply if the game is rigged against you before it even begins. If you follow a rigged game to it's disasterous conclusion, you are an idiot.

The goals haven't changed ... only your revolving accusations. You appear to have quite the fertile imagination. The goal of supporting a democratically elected Iraqi government until it can support itself is easily attainable. If you'd get out of lockstep formation and remove the blinders, it's pretty easy to see.

And you can save your brainwashing predictions of doom for someone willing to buy the nonsense.

[Dilloduck]

You again failed to support the Strawman you threw at me. You failed to show how my saying that the job is to stay alive and come home is "hiding" or that it "neglects" the missions or any other such thing. Stop arguing with yourself and either put up the link that you claimed I said I was DISRESPECTFUL of the troops. Don't pull some neocon asswash out of your rear end. Post the actual link.


stop the silly name calling and listen carefully-----IT'S NOT A LINK

The troops have a mission much larger than staying alive. They do it.

[Gunny]

stop the silly name calling and listen carefully-----IT'S NOT A LINK

The troops have a mission much larger than staying alive. They do it.

The Baron? Call names? You have that ALL wrong dillo ... he only gets called names .... ask him.:laugh2:

[Dilloduck]

The Baron? Call names? You have that ALL wrong dillo ... he only gets called names .... ask him.:laugh2:

Some of these postings aren't worth a response anymore--neg rep--move on.
Arguing with stupid is stupid of me.

[Pale Rider]

Some of these postings aren't worth a response anymore--neg rep--move on.
Arguing with stupid is stupid of me.

This baron von shitbag is a terrorist lover and America hater, especially our military dillo. Face it. Arguing with this turd is futile.

[glockmail]

That is correct---in a way. Their job is to follow orders, for Good, bad, or indifferent. That doesn't necessarily mean that they think their orders are right. Bingo. From an ex-military man to boot.
:poke:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

stop the silly name calling and listen carefully-----IT'S NOT A LINK

The troops have a mission much larger than staying alive. They do it.

See if you can follow along Mr Strawman. You alleged that I was disrespectful to the troops and I called your ass on it. Show me the post where I did that. In order to that you have to provide either my direct quote or a LINK to my post. (You don't get out very often, do you?)

You're a typical neocon who smears someone then backs down when called on it. Neg rep away. It's all you can do when you can no argue your failed point.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

This baron von shitbag is a terrorist lover and America hater, especially our military dillo. Face it. Arguing with this turd is futile.

Spoken like the Prick Rider that you are. Piss and whine when you get called some the same kind of names you whip out on others and then turn around and do it again. What a bag of shit.

The only people who hate America are the ones who expect everyone to march lockstep with one opinion of what America should be. You are one of the biggest anti-American windbags on this forum. Shut the fuck up.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The Baron? Call names? You have that ALL wrong dillo ... he only gets called names .... ask him.:laugh2:

Yep. I'm wrong alright. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=69020&postcount=301)

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You really need to learn to use the quote function.


If you read what I post, then how do you get your translation out of "I do not now nor have I believed since 1991 that removing Saddam Hussein from power was the strategically correct move?" You can search if you want, but you will not find a post by me that contradicts that stance.

And while you're being so smart, DO tell me EXACTLY what my "blind support for this war" entails. Feel free to fill me in on all the details of what my stance is on it.

If your stance truly is "I do not now nor have I believed since 1991 that removing Saddam Hussein from power was the strategically correct move" then you should be against this war more than anyone. Troops being killed for an idiotic policy are a national disgrace perpetrated by this administration. Supporting the "mission" is the opposite of what your stated policy is and therefore contradicts what you claim your policy is.



Bush hasn't stopped the war so I will bitch until he does.

Bitching and making false accusations are two different things.

Osama was persona non grata until last week. Hard to argue with the latest reports on Bush's speeches. Nothing false about that.



Your amateur psychoanalysis of me and my views is amusing. Wrong, but still amusing.

I don't have to psychoanalyze anything. You put the shit right out here for everyone to read on a daily basis. Not the slightest guesswork required.

And your deflective insult does not address the statement I made at all.

If you ever bothered to read anything I posted, I am anything but black and white contrary to your claims. Again, don't quit your day job.



How many times have we seen you and your amigos do exactly the same thing when one of those "you don't know what kind of successes we have had over here" articles shows up in some local media? Pot meet kettle.

Prove it. The evidence that supports my statment is your posting the link. Now find one I have posted that meets your little criteria above.

Here you go. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=3762) I happened to agree with this post in many respects but it still goes to show you that there is all kinds of information out there on this war, some of it good but most of it not. I like to hear good news as much as the next person but it's mostly right wingers screaming bloody hell over articles like this.



What exactly is the mission again? Weapons of mass destruction? Removing Saddam? Nuclear weapons? What is the mission TODAY, Gunny?

The mission today is the same as it has been since Day One. Remove Saddam from power and install a democratic government and remian until it can stand on its own.

Your attempts to say it's anything else are just that ... mere attempts.

Regime change was not what this administration declared was the main reason for attacking Saddam. It was WMDs. Only after they were not found did the "goals" change and they continue to change to this day.


The goals haven't changed ... only your revolving accusations. You appear to have quite the fertile imagination. The goal of supporting a democratically elected Iraqi government until it can support itself is easily attainable. If you'd get out of lockstep formation and remove the blinders, it's pretty easy to see.

And you can save your brainwashing predictions of doom for someone willing to buy the nonsense.

The goal of "supporting" a democratically elected Iraq only comes when that government deals with all of it's people fairly. The Shiite leaning government has done everything but be fair to all of it's people and that's why the insurgency has changed into a civil war where we are militarily supporting the Shias/Iraqi government. We have no business being in the middle of this fiasco. The "Mission" was accomplished years ago and we are just treading in deeper and deeper water.

As long as we are there, none of the factions will do any of the heavy lifting. The thousands of Iraqi troops that were supposed to be in place two years ago still aren't ready and, in the middle of it all, the Iraqi congress wants to take a two month vacation. Talk about learning the lessons from our commander in chief!

[Pale Rider]

Spoken like the Prick Rider that you are. Piss and whine when you get called some the same kind of names you whip out on others and then turn around and do it again. What a bag of shit.

The only people who hate America are the ones who expect everyone to march lockstep with one opinion of what America should be. You are one of the biggest anti-American windbags on this forum. Shut the fuck up.

I speak in favor of America, you speak against America, 99% of the time.

You have no defense. You do NOT love America as I do. You can't. You're a liberal, and it isn't allowed in the liberal handbook.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I speak in favor of America, you speak against America, 99% of the time.

You have no defense. You do NOT love America as I do. You can't. You're a liberal, and it isn't allowed in the liberal handbook.

If you knew anything about the so-called "Liberal Handbook" you would realize that we are much freer than you could ever hope to be because you have only one view of how America should be and everyone else "does not love America" or "speaks against America." We have the courage of our convictions to stand up for what is good and correct about America but also to stand up when we think it the government is going down the wrong path. That's where you and I differ. You sit in your chair with your hands folded while rightwing bad guys do bad shit and say nothing because they are rightwingers.

This country is being ruined by neocons who only think of themselves and not America. They only think of what they can bleed out of our country until it runs dry and then bitch that there's nothing left.

It's the truest form of anti-Americanism: point their fingers at someone else while their brothers rape and pillage the land for themselves whlist pissing and moaning that (name a group here) is picking up the crumbs that don't belong to them.

Loving America means fighting to make it better, not protect your buddies while they screw everyone over. You are oblivious to the difference.

[Dilloduck]

If you knew anything about the so-called "Liberal Handbook" you would realize that we are much freer than you could ever hope to be because you have only one view of how America should be and everyone else "does not love America" or "speaks against America." We have the courage of our convictions to stand up for what is good and correct about America but also to stand up when we think it the government is going down the wrong path. That's where you and I differ. You sit in your chair with your hands folded while rightwing bad guys do bad shit and say nothing because they are rightwingers.

This country is being ruined by neocons who only think of themselves and not America. They only think of what they can bleed out of our country until it runs dry and then bitch that there's nothing left.

It's the truest form of anti-Americanism: point their fingers at someone else while their brothers rape and pillage the land for themselves whlist pissing and moaning that (name a group here) is picking up the crumbs that don't belong to them.

Loving America means fighting to make it better, not protect your buddies while they screw everyone over. You are oblivious to the difference.

When you finish that bag of bad meth you got, try looking at what YOU said

This is YOUR quote--cut and pasted--LINKED, if you will--Ready?


Their job is to stay alive and get home. If you think it is anything else in this conflict you are seriously deluded.

(bold is mine)

Now you tell me where that quote shows any appreciation or true understanding of what our troops are doing on daily basis. In SPITE of al the turmoil and confusion they STILL are given orders and they STILL carry them out. YOU telling them that their job is to just stay alive amounts to treason. If they just tried to stay alive instead of following orders and completing missions they would be COURT MARTIALED. :fu:

[Gunny]

You really need to learn to use the quote function.

Don't look now, but I DO use the quote function.


If your stance truly is "I do not now nor have I believed since 1991 that removing Saddam Hussein from power was the strategically correct move" then you should be against this war more than anyone. Troops being killed for an idiotic policy are a national disgrace perpetrated by this administration. Supporting the "mission" is the opposite of what your stated policy is and therefore contradicts what you claim your policy is.

Incorrect. I have not forgotten where I come from. I carried out unpleasant tasks and/or missions I did not support on a daily basis.

I considered Saddam the lesser of two evils between him and the predicted sectarian violence that would errupt with his being removed from power. That prediction came true. That opinion is based on strategy, not feigned moral indignation.

Nor does that opinion negate the legitimate reasons for removing Saddam from power. While I consider the decision to not invade the wiser course of action, I do not consider the decision to invade idiotic.

Supporting the military accomplishing the mission it set out to do does not contradict that opinion either.

If I disagree with being tossed in the ocean but get tossed in anyway, do I refuse to swim because I disagreed with being tossed in? No.


Osama was persona non grata until last week. Hard to argue with the latest reports on Bush's speeches. Nothing false about that.

Tell that to the FBI.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted.htm

If you ever bothered to read anything I posted, I am anything but black and white contrary to your claims. Again, don't quit your day job.

Your posts on this board and the previous one we posted on say differently.



Here you go. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=3762) I happened to agree with this post in many respects but it still goes to show you that there is all kinds of information out there on this war, some of it good but most of it not. I like to hear good news as much as the next person but it's mostly right wingers screaming bloody hell over articles like this.


Regime change was not what this administration declared was the main reason for attacking Saddam. It was WMDs. Only after they were not found did the "goals" change and they continue to change to this day.

Revisionism. WMDs were one of the reasons given, not the reason.

The goal of "supporting" a democratically elected Iraq only comes when that government deals with all of it's people fairly. The Shiite leaning government has done everything but be fair to all of it's people and that's why the insurgency has changed into a civil war where we are militarily supporting the Shias/Iraqi government. We have no business being in the middle of this fiasco. The "Mission" was accomplished years ago and we are just treading in deeper and deeper water.

The government was democratically elected. It has now declared it wishes to gradually replace US forces with its own. I'm all for it. They say they're ready and want the ball, they can have it, IMO.

The sectarian violence between shia and sunni was going to happen with or without the Iraqi government.


As long as we are there, none of the factions will do any of the heavy lifting. The thousands of Iraqi troops that were supposed to be in place two years ago still aren't ready and, in the middle of it all, the Iraqi congress wants to take a two month vacation. Talk about learning the lessons from our commander in chief!

Again, they asked for the ball. I'm all for giving to them and leaving.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Now you tell me where that quote shows any appreciation or true understanding of what our troops are doing on daily basis. In SPITE of al the turmoil and confusion they STILL are given orders and they STILL carry them out. YOU telling them that their job is to just stay alive amounts to treason. If they just tried to stay alive instead of following orders and completing missions they would be COURT MARTIALED. :fu:

Tell me how dead soldiers accomplish anything. :fu:

[Gunny]

Tell me how dead soldiers accomplish anything. :fu:

Telling troops in the field to just stay alive is WRONG, and you know it.

[Dilloduck]

Tell me how dead soldiers accomplish anything. :fu:

You have the balls to actually say that our war dead accomplished NOTHING ?

I can't even find a smilie despicable enough for you.

[gabosaurus]

This is not an argument for the Bushies. They don't care if our troops are alive or dead.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

If I disagree with being tossed in the ocean but get tossed in anyway, do I refuse to swim because I disagreed with being tossed in? No.

Using that analogy, you swim to shore, punch out the guy who threw you in and bring all the rest who got thrown overboard to shore. Then, you court martial the captain, strip him of his pension and throw him in brig for endangering the ship of state. You don't tread water waiting for boat to come around to pick you up and you dispense with the squids who said they would be there to pluck you out of danger but were in the galley wolfing down your rations while you were almost drowning. That is, if we were to use that analogy.


Tell that to the FBI.

It wasn't the FBI who ignored him. It was your Boy George. And I doubt, if
Osama gets caught, that it will be the FBI that does it. It ain't their job and they don't have many agents in Afghanistan from all accounts. Boy George only brings up the Boogieman Osama when he is on one of those fear-mongering missions to push someone back in line here at home. Sorry, I'm not buying it.


Revisionism. WMDs were one of the reasons given, not the reason.

Regime change wasn't in the forefront of the war talk. It was all about how Saddam had these weapons and could attack us and THAT'S what drove this country to war. Then, the goals changed. And changed again. And changed again. And changed again. And changed again.


The government was democratically elected. It has now declared it wishes to gradually replace US forces with its own. I'm all for it. They say they're ready and want the ball, they can have it, IMO.

The sectarian violence between shia and sunni was going to happen with or without the Iraqi government.

They are just waiting until they isolate as much of the Sunni population as they can until they do their ethnic cleansing. We are complicit in helping them do that because we have not insisted on the governmental reforms and actions to protect the Sunnis before we help them. The Iraqis know that and keep letting us bear the brunt of the load.


Again, they asked for the ball. I'm all for giving to them and leaving.

Fucking A. We finally agree.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Telling troops in the field to just stay alive is WRONG, and you know it.

Telling them to die is what you want? I get it now. Thanks.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You have the balls to actually say that our war dead accomplished NOTHING ?

I can't even find a smilie despicable enough for you.

Another Strawman. You're good at those. Too bad you are wrong again.

Let me use the neocon strategy of corrupting one's words to suit one's own purposes:

So you are saying that you cheer for every dead soldier that is killed in Iraq because that means our mission is that much closer to being completed? What a sick fuck that makes you.

[Gunny]

Using that analogy, you swim to shore, punch out the guy who threw you in and bring all the rest who got thrown overboard to shore. Then, you court martial the captain, strip him of his pension and throw him in brig for endangering the ship of state. You don't tread water waiting for boat to come around to pick you up and you dispense with the squids who said they would be there to pluck you out of danger but were in the galley wolfing down your rations while you were almost drowning. That is, if we were to use that analogy.

The point is, disagreeing with being thrown in is not going to do a damned thing to keep me from drowning if I don't swim.

And I don't agree with the hammer everyone even remotely in the area theory.



It wasn't the FBI who ignored him. It was your Boy George. And I doubt, if
Osama gets caught, that it will be the FBI that does it. It ain't their job and they don't have many agents in Afghanistan from all accounts. Boy George only brings up the Boogieman Osama when he is on one of those fear-mongering missions to push someone back in line here at home. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

How is Bush ignoring OBL? Because he won't invade Pakistan to find him? Isn't invading countries what you're already pissed at him for?


Regime change wasn't in the forefront of the war talk. It was all about how Saddam had these weapons and could attack us and THAT'S what drove this country to war. Then, the goals changed. And changed again. And changed again. And changed again. And changed again.

Odd, the goals haven't changed that I am aware of. WMDs was one of the reasons given at the beginning and is still a legitimate reason, IMO. Freeing the Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny was most certainly another reason given, and regime change is the ONLY way to accomplish that.


They are just waiting until they isolate as much of the Sunni population as they can until they do their ethnic cleansing. We are complicit in helping them do that because we have not insisted on the governmental reforms and actions to protect the Sunnis before we help them. The Iraqis know that and keep letting us bear the brunt of the load.

And of course you don't believe the Saudis will crank up their support for the Sunnis?



Fucking A. We finally agree.

I doubt it. I'm for giving the government what they asked for. Gradual replacement. Unless I am mistaken, your idea of "leaving" is everyone yesterday.

[Gunny]

Telling them to die is what you want? I get it now. Thanks.

Weren't you the one who a couple posts back denied seeing in only black or white?

[Guernicaa]

If right-wingers truthfully supported our troops with a full heart they would be campaigning to get them out of Iraq.
The only problem is that 70% of the right-wing fantasy community still believes Saddam had WMD and still think that there is some huge link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. If they watched normal news they would understand that the conflict in Iraq is one that cannot be accomplished by any surge or any more days spent of bloodshed and death by our military. The sectarian violence will NOT stop, and as long as we continue to occupy, the Iraqi people will continue to blow us up. The Vietcong said get the fuck out of here, and so are the Iraqi people.

[Doniston]

No - Liberal Democrats' (if that's you, fine) expressed desire for the US to fail in Iraq makes them/you a bad American.

(shrug) because we beleive it to be a fact does not mean we desire it that way. we simply know it is a losing cause.

[Doniston]

Reid has lied and committed a number of felonies while in office. We have tracked them all. We have just started a campaign against Dirty Harry, he is a disgrace to our state and country.Strange that the "Disgraces" hold the majority of power in the congress. can't be too disgraceful, HUH??? Could it possibly be that your opinion is in the Minority???

[Birdzeye]

Reid has lied and committed a number of felonies while in office. We have tracked them all. We have just started a campaign against Dirty Harry, he is a disgrace to our state and country.

So much for the presumption of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. :rolleyes:

[Gaffer]

If right-wingers truthfully supported our troops with a full heart they would be campaigning to get them out of Iraq.
The only problem is that 70% of the right-wing fantasy community still believes Saddam had WMD and still think that there is some huge link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. If they watched normal news they would understand that the conflict in Iraq is one that cannot be accomplished by any surge or any more days spent of bloodshed and death by our military. The sectarian violence will NOT stop, and as long as we continue to occupy, the Iraqi people will continue to blow us up. The Vietcong said get the fuck out of here, and so are the Iraqi people.

saddam did have wmd's and did have ties to al queda. There's more evidence coming out on that all the time.

What you call "normal news" is just the MSM that is nothing but liberal propaganda. If it's not anti-Bush it doesn't make their nightly reports.

The surge is working and isn't even completed yet. But you wouldn't know about that since all you get your news from is "normal news".

It's not the iraqi people we are fighting there. It's al queda and some iranian supported militia.

The vietcong were communists supported by north vietnam and trying to over throw the South Vietnam government. Totally different war and times. If you want to discuss Vietnam I am more than happy to oblige but you better come armed with facts and experience and a real knowledge of history.

[Kathianne]

So much for the presumption of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. :rolleyes:

you do mean like the calls for 'impeach Bush'?

[Dilloduck]

because we beleive it to be a fact does not mean we desire it that way. we simply know it is a losing cause.

No----you are going to ENSURE it is a losing cause.

[glockmail]

....The Vietcong said get the fuck out of here, and so are the Iraqi people.

So what exactly happened in Vietnam after you liberals defeated America last time? :poke:

[Kathianne]

So what exactly happened in Vietnam after you liberals defeated America last time? :poke:

It was all Kumbaya, dontcha know? Do you think they care?

[Gunny]

If right-wingers truthfully supported our troops with a full heart they would be campaigning to get them out of Iraq.
The only problem is that 70% of the right-wing fantasy community still believes Saddam had WMD and still think that there is some huge link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. If they watched normal news they would understand that the conflict in Iraq is one that cannot be accomplished by any surge or any more days spent of bloodshed and death by our military. The sectarian violence will NOT stop, and as long as we continue to occupy, the Iraqi people will continue to blow us up. The Vietcong said get the fuck out of here, and so are the Iraqi people.

Only people incapable of reading and comprehending English beleive Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs. I suppose YOU can account for all the WMDs/percursors Saddam is on record with the UN as possessing that are STILL unaccounted for?

What exactly do you classify THIS as?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_sarin_gulfwar_070525w/

or this?

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm

How about the fact the US sold Saddam dual-use percursors?

Your ignorance on WMDs is only surpassed by your ignorance of who and what the Vietcong were.

[Doniston]

No----you are going to ENSURE it is a losing cause. Just your opinion, and you have every right to be wrong.

[Pale Rider]

This is not an argument for the Bushies. They don't care if our troops are alive or dead.

I see. Now you speak for the "bushies?" Please link us to where they stated that.

[Pale Rider]

Only people incapable of reading and comprehending English beleive Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs. I suppose YOU can account for all the WMDs/percursors Saddam is on record with the UN as possessing that are STILL unaccounted for?

What exactly do you classify THIS as?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_sarin_gulfwar_070525w/

or this?

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm

How about the fact the US sold Saddam dual-use percursors?

Your ignorance on WMDs is only surpassed by your ignorance of who and what the Vietcong were.

Why bother Gunny? You could take osama over to iraq and park his butt right on top of a wmd and he'd STILL deny it was there.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

The point is, disagreeing with being thrown in is not going to do a damned thing to keep me from drowning if I don't swim.

The trouble with your analogy is that when you finally make it to shore you stand up and say, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?" at which point you get tossed overboard again. When you stand up and protest being thrown overboard, I'll buy your argument that you were against this whole shebang in the first place.


How is Bush ignoring OBL? Because he won't invade Pakistan to find him? Isn't invading countries what you're already pissed at him for?

Don't try pulling Dillo's Strawman bullshit here Gunny.

Bush ignored OBL for years BECAUSE he couldn't find him. He let him slip at Bora Tora by using Afghan troops instead of pouring our own forces into the fight and now he's gone. Yeah, he's become a cockroach in the night but cockroaches have a way of breeding and infesting other places... like Iraq, where they never had a serious presence before. Bush was asked about him and blew OBL off and never mentioned him for years thereafter. Then, after vetoing the War Spending Plan, he brings the Osama Boogieman back out of his special closet to try and scare everybody with. It's disingenuous and transparent and it's bullshit thru and thru.


Odd, the goals haven't changed that I am aware of. WMDs was one of the reasons given at the beginning and is still a legitimate reason, IMO. Freeing the Iraqis from Saddam's tyranny was most certainly another reason given, and regime change is the ONLY way to accomplish that.

This country would not have gone to war on the premise of regime change as the primary reason. It was WMDs. The scare that the Bushbots put into everyone over weapons that could reach America drove the frenzy that led up to the war and the neocons were leading that charge. Funny you don't remember that.


And of course you don't believe the Saudis will crank up their support for the Sunnis?

They already have. They have let everyone know that they are willing to head a force through the auspices of the Arab League to pacify Iraq. I'll give you one guess who is standing in the way. The reason your Boy George is in the way? Because the Arab League is a force he cannot control and if Bush cannot control it, he wants no part of it. He is the elephant in the corner, as far as the Arab League goes. He's also blocking the door. Until he gets his dumb fucking ass out of the way, count on counting more American dead until you cannot count anymore.


I doubt it. I'm for giving the government what they asked for. Gradual replacement. Unless I am mistaken, your idea of "leaving" is everyone yesterday.

You already have given the government what they asked for: your silent complicity. They are counting on people just like you to let them do whatever the hell they want until they are stopped by the rest of us who are willing to speak out, protest, and make their voices heard.

My idea is simple. Get out. Let the people who want to fight it out fight it out because they don't want to settle this with words and they never have. If the Arab League manages to play a role somehow in the future, only the shame of killing fellow Arabs/Muslims may get them to stop. As infidels, we are expendable and always have been. If they maintain their freedom, there won't be one monument in Iraq to commemorate our sacrifice because it means little to them. We're just targets.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Weren't you the one who a couple posts back denied seeing in only black or white?

I can see sarcasm is a lost art as far as you are concerned. Thanks for playing.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

saddam did have wmd's and did have ties to al queda. There's more evidence coming out on that all the time.

Bring the proof, Gaf. The Pentagon has said there were no ties. The WMDs were destroyed after the First Gulf War and you believed Saddam's bullshit to the contrary. Bummer for you.


What you call "normal news" is just the MSM that is nothing but liberal propaganda. If it's not anti-Bush it doesn't make their nightly reports.

Nice to see you lumping in your buds at FOX as part of the Liberal Media. I'm sure they are overjoyed at the prospects. your whinig about the Liberal Media is just media that doesn't report things THE WAY YOU SEE IT. That's all it is... an excuse to complain.


The surge is working and isn't even completed yet. But you wouldn't know about that since all you get your news from is "normal news".

There is no proof that the surge is working because if it was you would have produced it already.


It's not the iraqi people we are fighting there. It's al queda and some iranian supported militia.

We've never been fighting the Iraqi people but rather the armed camps that represent the people. It's no longer just the insurgents (who are mainly Sunni) but the death squads (Shia) and al-qaeda (outside foreigners) that we are aligned against. We need to get the hell out. This isn't our fight.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Why bother Gunny? You could take osama over to iraq and park his butt right on top of a wmd and he'd STILL deny it was there.

IF you could find Osama...

[Dilloduck]

Just your opinion, and you have every right to be wrong.

naaaaaaa--no thanks--I'll stick with the truth. When was the last time any liberal posted anything about the great job our troops were doing? You're another partisan hack who's so caught up with "the Cause" the you can't see your contribution to failure.
Here's a little test you can take. What would you do if Iraq pulled its shit together? What would you do if Iran agreed to dismantle the nuke project? What would you do if America was hit by Al-queada again?

[Doniston]

naaaaaaa--no thanks--I'll stick with the truth. When was the last time any liberal posted anything about the great job our troops were doing? You're another partisan hack who's so caught up with "the Cause" the you can't see your contribution to failure.
Here's a little test you can take. What would you do if Iraq pulled its shit together? What would you do if Iran agreed to dismantle the nuke project? What would you do if America was hit by Al-queada again?

As I said, you have every right to be wrong.


But what does that little test have to do with anything at all.??? but Ok,I'll play.

1. I would beleive I was dreaming. and when I woke up I would know I had been.

2. I would say they had made a bad mistake.

3. try to contain the damage. (note: you didn't ask how to stop it.from happening.)

[Birdzeye]

Only people incapable of reading and comprehending English beleive Saddam DIDN'T have WMDs. I suppose YOU can account for all the WMDs/percursors Saddam is on record with the UN as possessing that are STILL unaccounted for?

What exactly do you classify THIS as?

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/05/military_sarin_gulfwar_070525w/

or this?

http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm

How about the fact the US sold Saddam dual-use percursors?

Your ignorance on WMDs is only surpassed by your ignorance of who and what the Vietcong were.

Those two links talk about events almost 20 years ago, before and during Desert Storm.

The UN inspector Hans Blix failed to find evidence that Iraq had reconstituted its biological, nuclear and chemical weapons.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.report/index.html

[Gunny]

Those two links talk about events almost 20 years ago, before and during Desert Storm.

The UN inspector Hans Blix failed to find evidence that Iraq had reconstituted its biological, nuclear and chemical weapons.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/06/05/sprj.irq.blix.report/index.html

True enough. It's hard to find anything when you're told exactly where you can look.

It doesn't matter when those events occurred. It shows possession, intent to use, and use of WMDs. He had WMDs/WMD percursors on record with the UN that neither Saddam nor Blix were able and/or willing to account for, and are STILL unaccounted for today. Did they just "disappear?"

Had Saddam accounted for the missing WMDs/percursors, he probably would have avoided invasion.

Had Saddam not acted for 12 years like he was trying to hide them by dictating where inspectors could look during those times he didn't kick them out of the country, he probably could have avoided invasion.

In fact, had Saddam just complied with the terms of the cease-fire agreement HE signed, he would not have been invaded.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

In fact, had Saddam just complied with the terms of the cease-fire agreement HE signed, he would not have been invaded.

Not according to Richard Clarke.


Clarke finally got his meeting about al Qaeda in April, three months after his urgent request. But it wasn't with the president or cabinet. It was with the second-in-command in each relevant department.

For the Pentagon, it was Paul Wolfowitz.

Clarke relates, "I began saying, 'We have to deal with bin Laden; we have to deal with al Qaeda.' Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, said, 'No, no, no. We don't have to deal with al Qaeda. Why are we talking about that little guy? We have to talk about Iraqi terrorism against the United States.'

"And I said, 'Paul, there hasn't been any Iraqi terrorism against the United States in eight years!' And I turned to the deputy director of the CIA and said, 'Isn't that right?' And he said, 'Yeah, that's right. There is no Iraqi terrorism against the United States."

Clarke went on to add, "There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda, ever."

Wolfowitz, Cheney & Bush were pushing to go after Saddam from the get-go. (/11 was merely the excuse they used to do it and that violated cease-fire was the fuse, not the cause.

link (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml)

[Pale Rider]

IF you could find Osama...

I was round aboutly refering to your joined at the hip brother obama.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I was round aboutly refering to your joined at the hip brother obama.

It's easy to get those two confused if you watch enough Fox News Channel, isn't it?

[Samantha]

It's easy to get those two confused if you watch enough Fox News Channel, isn't it?LOL! It's apparent why these folks are so confused. I'm sure they religiously watch FOX with the love of lies in their hearts ;)

[nevadamedic]

I was round aboutly refering to your joined at the hip brother obama.

:clap:

[stephanie]

LOL! It's apparent why these folks are so confused. I'm sure they religiously watch FOX with the love of lies in their hearts ;)

that is so funny...

I never knew...that listening to Rush, Fox news, etc....that I wasn't able to form my own...opinion...Golley shuck e durn...yuk yuk....








:cuckoo:

[glockmail]

It's easy to get those two confused if you watch enough Fox News Channel, isn't it? The most trusted name in news really sucks for you, don't it?:laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

The most trusted name in news really sucks for you, don't it?:laugh2:

:laugh2: It must hard to watch your stranglehold on the news dissipate. All those liberal-biased networks and newspapers are losing viewers/buyers, while Fox and the Internet gain in numbers.

[KarlMarx]

Disagreeing with bad policy and an administration that represents my views and goals by a factor of zero does not make me unpatriotic nor does it make me a "bad" American.
You're right, disagreeing with what you believe to be a bad policy does not make you a bad American.

What makes some of your fellow liberals bad Americans is doing things that help the enemy during a time of War.

Those who opposed our entry into World War II stopped their public opposition to the war when it was declared. It wasn't because they supported the President, but because they loved this country.

There is only one commander in chief of the armed forces, he does not need 300 million back seat drivers, some of whom, at every opportunity give their opinions on how the war should be fought.

[Abbey Marie]

You're right, disagreeing with what you believe to be a bad policy does not make you a bad American.

What makes some of your fellow liberals bad Americans is doing things that help the enemy during a time of War.

Those who opposed our entry into World War II stopped their public opposition to the war when it was declared. It wasn't because they supported the President, but because they loved this country.

There is only one commander in chief of the armed forces, he does not need 300 million back seat drivers, some of whom, at every opportunity give their opinions on how the war should be fought.

Great post, Karl. :clap:

[Doniston]

a bad American.




There is only one commander in chief of the armed forces, he does not need 300 million back seat drivers, some of whom, at every opportunity give their opinions on how the war should be fought.

But he certainly needs someone to tell him how. It is painfully obvious that "HE" doesn't have a clue.

[GW in Ohio]

You're right, disagreeing with what you believe to be a bad policy does not make you a bad American.

What makes some of your fellow liberals bad Americans is doing things that help the enemy during a time of War.

Those who opposed our entry into World War II stopped their public opposition to the war when it was declared. It wasn't because they supported the President, but because they loved this country.

There is only one commander in chief of the armed forces, he does not need 300 million back seat drivers, some of whom, at every opportunity give their opinions on how the war should be fought.

Whoa! Hold it right there....

You dare to compare World War II with Cheney's stupid Iraq debacle? You do know there is a world of difference between a war to combat fascism and save the world from Japanese imperialism and a war that never should have been started, right?

[KarlMarx]

Whoa! Hold it right there....

You dare to compare World War II with Cheney's stupid Iraq debacle? You do know there is a world of difference between a war to combat fascism and save the world from Japanese imperialism and a war that never should have been started, right?
How dare I? I dare to compare!

Stupid Iraq debacle? Silly you.... if it weren't for you liberals beefing non-stop since the war began and undermining public opinion of the war, things may be going better!

You leftists are bound and determined to lose that war.

If it's a debacle, we have people like Nancy Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan and most of Hollywooed to thank. I'm sure Al Queda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad consider them their greatest asset.

[SassyLady]

And they certainly aren't Liberals. Liberals support the troops in the best way possible: they want to bring them home.

Have you ever asked the troops if they feel this is the best way possible to support them?

[SassyLady]

Your partisan attitude has blinded you to the truth of this war, Gunny, and it's really sad to see. Your Boy George sees that he is losing this conflict all the way around now and is bringing back the big Boogieman to scare us all: Osama bin Laden. After stating that he doesn't know where he is and doesn't care because he is irrelevant and ignoring him for years, he now brings him up 11 times in one speech and tries to salvage a failed policy of a failed war in a failed presidency. The only sorry ass and despicable position is that of failed leader and the morons who still march in lockstep to the Stay The Course drumbeat.

You are too stupid to see there is no victory in this war. Getting our troops home alive is our only victory. The Endless War on terrorism has begun and you are totally clueless to our real position. You keep sitting there cheering for victory when in reality the only choices are War Continues or War Ends.



You could never have been more wrong but then that's par for the course for your blindly partisan dumbass self. Who are you going to believe more: me or a troop in the field? You are going to believe a troop in the field, of course. So do I.

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/28/world/middleeast/28delta.html?ex=1338004800&en=3bd9909b23969f9b&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

How many deployments will be enough Gunny? How many times do we recycle troops thru the war before they come back ruined and worthless to the defense of our country? How long do you cut corners on their medical benefit to further fund the war? How long do you refuse to bring replacement weaponry into the conflict because your budget doesn't call for it and further risk the lives of more troops? How long do you continue to fight a war on the cheap that doesn't kill vast numbers of our troops but makes them mentally worthless after a half dozen tours in the war further reducing the capability to defend our own borders? How long, Gunny?

BVE - You are the modern day Tokoyo Rose.

[SassyLady]

I am still wondering what the libs think will happen if we bring all our troops home.

Do they think the Iraqi people will suddenly quit fighting with each other or whether they will continue to try and dominate each other?

Some may say "who cares" - not our problem.

I think the libs need to think beyond bringing the troops home. The jihadists want to destroy America and Americans. We bring the troops home - the jihad is suddenly right here in our front yard. Is that really what the liberals want?

And if any of you don't think this is what will happen, then please, enlighten me about what you think will happen. That the terrorists will suddenly say 'hey, OK, we kicked their butts and now we can sit back, relax and go about our own business?"

I truly do want to hear what you have to say about what you think the next act in this global war on terrorism will be.

[DragonStryk72]

Did I say they were on the side of the enemy? I said they enable the enemy with their actions.

But by that same yardstick, neva, the conservative republicans do as well, with "stress" positions, and our jumping blindly into these affairs. Grave errors have been made, and sometimes, the best that you can do is admit you screwed up, and hand the ball to someone more capable of dealing with the situation, because that is apparently not us.

[DragonStryk72]

Just ask the leader of you liberals, dingy harry. He's already declared that we lost the war! What do you think that did for the moral of our heroic forces in harms way? If that doesn't HELP and EMBOLDEN the enemy, I don't know what does.

Then top that off with that pie faced old ignorant fuck murtha calling our troops rapists and murderers, and there ya go. These stinking liberal pieces of shit do more for our ENEMY than they do for our OWN TROOPS.

Now sit down shut up. Your fifteen minutes of being a fool should be over.

And what do you think Walter Reed, hired on a no-bid contract by the republican held congress and presidency, did for our troops? Also, what did lying plainly (check any paper that has covered the war since inception of it for that one) to get our troops in the way do to honor them? Next point, What about the repeated "no black sites" ('Oh, you mean those black sites?!'), or Bush's infamous I didn't read the report do for our troops? There's also the repeatedly ignoring his generals, that of course was just a wonderous decision on his part (Again, research any article covering this disaster of a war)

Look, Saddam was a despot, and yes, he needed to get taken down. I am not arguin the point, because yes, there are terrible people in this world, and Saddam has been playing the same stupid punk game with us since we put him into power. He would sit there, declare he's not going the UN's way, and then blithely roll over as soon as someone tried to do something, and then, when we would do something, he would simply hold out till we gave it a rest, and cry, "Victory for Iraq". Now, had that been the stated reason for war, I would have been fine with that, it has nobility to it, and it is something that people both here, and over there, can get behind. But no, we couldn't go at it like men of honor, that's just asking too much for our troops, isn't it?

This war has been mishandled at every level, by BOTH sides, by both liberals and democrats, and so now, we are stuck straddling a civil war that has been coming since Iraq was made a country by the British. Our friends, our brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers are there fighting and dying, because they were lied to, because those in power, on both sides, again, didn't bother to take the time to investigate.

Japan was our shining moment of nation building, but you see, the difference is that, in Japan, after WWII, they were united as one country standing together, meaning that once they had surrendered, that was it, it was over. Here, there are blood wars that have been going since the foundings of the various sects, and we are only fanning the flames. We are not helping, we are not making it better- it is getting worse, no matter how you care to look at it. We can't pull out, because to pull out would make all hell break loose, and you bet that some jackass is going to go ahead and hit the refineries, and we are screwed. Beyond that, we will be blamed by everyone for it, and rightly so, we made this bed, and now we lie in it. At the same time however, we cannot continue as we have, we cannot continue the fighting as is, but to get back on track, there absolutely has to be a showdown between dems and reps.

I would like to apologize for the tone of this, I got off on a fairly good rant, but alot of that really just needs to be said.

[SassyLady]

But by that same yardstick, neva, the conservative republicans do as well, with "stress" positions, and our jumping blindly into these affairs. Grave errors have been made, and sometimes, the best that you can do is admit you screwed up, and hand the ball to someone more capable of dealing with the situation, because that is apparently not us.


And who would that be?

In other words, you want us to: "quit, surrender, give up, run, cry uncle, abandon, yield, relinquish"....what so many have paid a high price for, before it's finished? Need I go on?

[DragonStryk72]

For one, the UN needs to get in the game, which they have not done thus far, allowing lives to be lost so they can sit back and go, "I told you so". Yes, you do need to go on, go on and read the rest of it, not just the part that works as a sound bite.

[SassyLady]

We can't pull out, because to pull out would make all hell break loose, and you bet that some jackass is going to go ahead and hit the refineries, and we are screwed. Beyond that, we will be blamed by everyone for it, and rightly so, we made this bed, and now we lie in it. At the same time however, we cannot continue as we have, we cannot continue the fighting as is, but to get back on track, there absolutely has to be a showdown between dems and reps.


I agree with you on this.

[SassyLady]

For one, the UN needs to get in the game, which they have not done thus far, allowing lives to be lost so they can sit back and go, "I told you so". Yes, you do need to go on, go on and read the rest of it, not just the part that works as a sound bite.

Dragon........I don't need to read sound bites..........I talk to many returning and departing soldiers all the time and belong to our family support group. So, I don't need you lecturing me on what I need to read and listen to.

[Dilloduck]

BVE - You are the modern day Tokoyo Rose.

Good point. Liberal talking points about the WOT sound strikingly similar to enemy propaganda.

[Gunny]

Dragon........I don't need to read sound bites..........I talk to many returning and departing soldiers all the time and belong to our family support group. So, I don't need you lecturing me on what I need to read and listen to.

PWNED!!!:laugh2:

[Gaffer]

And what do you think Walter Reed, hired on a no-bid contract by the republican held congress and presidency, did for our troops? Also, what did lying plainly (check any paper that has covered the war since inception of it for that one) to get our troops in the way do to honor them? Next point, What about the repeated "no black sites" ('Oh, you mean those black sites?!'), or Bush's infamous I didn't read the report do for our troops? There's also the repeatedly ignoring his generals, that of course was just a wonderous decision on his part (Again, research any article covering this disaster of a war)

Look, Saddam was a despot, and yes, he needed to get taken down. I am not arguin the point, because yes, there are terrible people in this world, and Saddam has been playing the same stupid punk game with us since we put him into power. He would sit there, declare he's not going the UN's way, and then blithely roll over as soon as someone tried to do something, and then, when we would do something, he would simply hold out till we gave it a rest, and cry, "Victory for Iraq". Now, had that been the stated reason for war, I would have been fine with that, it has nobility to it, and it is something that people both here, and over there, can get behind. But no, we couldn't go at it like men of honor, that's just asking too much for our troops, isn't it?

This war has been mishandled at every level, by BOTH sides, by both liberals and democrats, and so now, we are stuck straddling a civil war that has been coming since Iraq was made a country by the British. Our friends, our brothers, sisters, fathers, and mothers are there fighting and dying, because they were lied to, because those in power, on both sides, again, didn't bother to take the time to investigate.

Japan was our shining moment of nation building, but you see, the difference is that, in Japan, after WWII, they were united as one country standing together, meaning that once they had surrendered, that was it, it was over. Here, there are blood wars that have been going since the foundings of the various sects, and we are only fanning the flames. We are not helping, we are not making it better- it is getting worse, no matter how you care to look at it. We can't pull out, because to pull out would make all hell break loose, and you bet that some jackass is going to go ahead and hit the refineries, and we are screwed. Beyond that, we will be blamed by everyone for it, and rightly so, we made this bed, and now we lie in it. At the same time however, we cannot continue as we have, we cannot continue the fighting as is, but to get back on track, there absolutely has to be a showdown between dems and reps.

I would like to apologize for the tone of this, I got off on a fairly good rant, but alot of that really just needs to be said.

Bush did not lie. He stated very clearly he intended to take saddam down because he was a despot and a threat to the region and the US. saddam claimed to have no WMD's while at the same time doing everything he could to make it appear as if he did. He continually flaunted the UN resolutions and ignored the cease fire agreement of 91. He fired on ours and British aircraft patroling the no fly zone for 12 years. He was never "ours". He came to power on his own through murder and the same tactics being used by chevez now. The only help he ever got from us was intelligence info on iranian troop movements. All of his equipment and arms including his bio and chem agents came from russia and france. He supported all teror organizations in the region, not out of religious ferver but for his own gain.

As for Japan. When we took over that country a new constitution was written. That constitution outlawed any religion being supported by the government. Bushito could be practiced individually but could not be constituted into the government. That's where it's going wrong in iraq. islam is still predominate in the iraqi constitution. There wil never be peace in the ME until islam is iradicated.

If we just pull out the al queda types and iranians will take control of the country. Giving them a tremendous source of revenue from a country that has an infrastructure. Not to mention complete control of the gulf.

Lastly I would like to hear from anyone that has sat in on Bush's meetings with the generals that he didn't listen too. Anyone privy to all the classified info passed on by these generals and who has personal knowledge of what Bush did and didn't read.

I'm pissed at Bush over the amnesty deal and I'm sure he made plenty of miscalculations concerning iraq. But I get even more pissed at the silly accusations about his lying when that is not fact, its just partisan bullshit that undermines this country and the war effort.

[SassyLady]

Bush did not lie. He stated very clearly he intended to take saddam down because he was a despot and a threat to the region and the US. saddam claimed to have no WMD's while at the same time doing everything he could to make it appear as if he did. He continually flaunted the UN resolutions and ignored the cease fire agreement of 91. He fired on ours and British aircraft patroling the no fly zone for 12 years. He was never "ours". He came to power on his own through murder and the same tactics being used by chevez now. The only help he ever got from us was intelligence info on iranian troop movements. All of his equipment and arms including his bio and chem agents came from russia and france. He supported all teror organizations in the region, not out of religious ferver but for his own gain.

As for Japan. When we took over that country a new constitution was written. That constitution outlawed any religion being supported by the government. Bushito could be practiced individually but could not be constituted into the government. That's where it's going wrong in iraq. islam is still predominate in the iraqi constitution. There wil never be peace in the ME until islam is iradicated.

If we just pull out the al queda types and iranians will take control of the country. Giving them a tremendous source of revenue from a country that has an infrastructure. Not to mention complete control of the gulf.

Lastly I would like to hear from anyone that has sat in on Bush's meetings with the generals that he didn't listen too. Anyone privy to all the classified info passed on by these generals and who has personal knowledge of what Bush did and didn't read.

I'm pissed at Bush over the amnesty deal and I'm sure he made plenty of miscalculations concerning iraq. But I get even more pissed at the silly accusations about his lying when that is not fact, its just partisan bullshit that undermines this country and the war effort.

I knew there was something I like about you Gaffer. You don't judge a person based upon one issue.........you focus on each individual issue. Being pissed about the amensty issue doesn't mean you suddenly rewrite history about the rest. :clap::clap:

[gabosaurus]

http://usera.imagecave.com/markyannone/Album12/BushTerrorist.jpg

[Pale Rider]

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/8356/bushamnestypa4.jpg

[Gaffer]

http://img380.imageshack.us/img380/8356/bushamnestypa4.jpg

Much more accurate.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

BVE - You are the modern day Tokoyo Rose.

Coming from you, Princess Quisling, that's a compliment. Only Tony Blair has been a better lap dog for the current fiasco/administration. Come back when you have more than just insults to base your position on.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Have you ever asked the troops if they feel this is the best way possible to support them?

In fact, I am is a position where I run into troops almost every day. They appreciate the truth being told about this war more than you seem to. Wanting for them to get home safely is the best support you can offer. Wanting them home as soon as possible is even better. No one wants to be the last one to die for this quagmire.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Good point. Liberal talking points about the WOT sound strikingly similar to enemy propaganda.

And conservative talking points sound amazingly like this:


To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed…”

~George Orwell, 1984, page 223

[Baron Von Esslingen]

You're right, disagreeing with what you believe to be a bad policy does not make you a bad American.

Kernels of truth, on your behalf, do not excuse the blatency of the lies that follow.


What makes some of your fellow liberals bad Americans is doing things that help the enemy during a time of War.

The enemy doesn't need our "help." They would fight regardless of what anyone said against this war. They certainly didn't back down when America was united in this course and they aren't backing down now. Your allegations of Liberals assisting the enemy is crap and you know it.


Those who opposed our entry into World War II stopped their public opposition to the war when it was declared. It wasn't because they supported the President, but because they loved this country.

Comparing a war of choice against a tin pot dictator to WW2 is historically disingenuous because the causes of both wars are not remotely the same. If you really berieve that they are, then I feel sorry for you. Of course, I think you used the analogy just to make a point in an argument which makes it even more disingenuous.


There is only one commander in chief of the armed forces, he does not need 300 million back seat drivers, some of whom, at every opportunity give their opinions on how the war should be fought.

Don't forget, the CIC is also the president who "serves" at the will af the people, not the other way around. Being president means exactly that: you have 300 million backseat drivers. They all scream simultaneously when you decide to sail the ship of state onto the rocks. Or hadn't you noticed?

[Baron Von Esslingen]

if it weren't for you liberals beefing non-stop since the war began and undermining public opinion of the war, things may be going better!

You leftists are bound and determined to lose that war.

If it's a debacle, we have people like Nancy Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan and most of Hollywooed to thank. I'm sure Al Queda, Hamas and Islamic Jihad consider them their greatest asset.

So, you think that American opinion polls determine the course of the war? Silly you.

The war is not ours to win or lose. It is the Iraqis' war to fight and destroy each other or stop and live in peace. Silly you.

In fact, our presence there is the greatest recruiter for the terrorists there is or haven't you been reading the military reports on the matter? Obviously not since you think that an American elected official's opposition to the war is being used as a recruiting tool for jihad. Silly you.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I am still wondering what the libs think will happen if we bring all our troops home.

Do they think the Iraqi people will suddenly quit fighting with each other or whether they will continue to try and dominate each other?

Some may say "who cares" - not our problem.

I think the libs need to think beyond bringing the troops home. The jihadists want to destroy America and Americans. We bring the troops home - the jihad is suddenly right here in our front yard. Is that really what the liberals want?

And if any of you don't think this is what will happen, then please, enlighten me about what you think will happen. That the terrorists will suddenly say 'hey, OK, we kicked their butts and now we can sit back, relax and go about our own business?"

I truly do want to hear what you have to say about what you think the next act in this global war on terrorism will be.

I can tell you what will happen when we bring the troops home.

We will spend years healing the cream of our fighting forces that have been sent through a grinder for no apparent reason.

The Iraqis will continue to kill each other the same way the Lebanese did until they get tired of the bloodshed. We didn't intercede there. We have no business interceding here. Let The Arab League move their troops in to quell this civil war.

The WoT began in Afghanistan, a country we pretty much ignore to the extent that the Taliban has resurfaced. No one had a problem with us going in there to fix matters but we did such a shitty job that now the people are turning back to the hated Taliban because they kept the peace. Sad, isn't it? Beating up a tin pot dictator was more important than freeing a people from a cultural and religious dictatorship that betrayed a nation's heritage. Things are so bad there that the people are actually turning to them in response. Talk about screwing the pooch twice.

Your point about jihadists coming here is nothing more than Fox Noise fear-mongering. THEY ARE ALREADY HERE! Timothy McVey, the 19 who took out the WTC, the handful who tried it in 1993, were already in country. The sad fact is we cannot keep track of who comes in and who leaves. Visas expire and people are still here. Border crossings have been tightened up but folks still slip in because we do not have an efficient means to deal with the problem. If your Boy George really gave a damn, money would have poured into this area and solutions found. He was more interested in making political statements and news bite points than fixing the problem.

Just like the pipeline terrorists at JFK found out, talking about a terrorist act and actually doing one are two different stories. The jihadists in Iraq are so poor and out of touch that all they can do is talk about messing with America. They can blow up our troops while they are in country but once they leave that all becomes another dream.

The sooner we are out of Iraq the better the world will be.

[glockmail]

And the numbers say you are completely wrong:

link (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2006/12/tns.troopspol06l1229/)

When you lose the support of the military who is fighting your war, you lose period.

I haven't seen the poll, but assuming for a moment that it is legit, they may not approve of the way the war is being fought, but that has no bearing on their commitment to get the job done.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

I haven't seen the poll, but assuming for a moment that it is legit, they may not approve of the way the war is being fought, but that has no bearing on their commitment to get the job done.

Well, when you get done helping OJ find the real killers you can go find out whether a poll surveying military members sponsored by the Army Times is legit.

[glockmail]

Well, when you get done helping OJ find the real killers you can go find out whether a poll surveying military members sponsored by the Army Times is legit. Nice try at deflection. Try addressing the issue raised next time.:poke:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Why waste time answering anything you ask when you could dodge out the back door and claim the poll isn't legit? I'm all too well aware of the numerous excuses that you can come up with with. Shit. I'm still waiting for you to prove that your own sources are legit in the thread where you claimed that al-qaeda and Saddam were working together.

Military folks are frequently asked to do the impossible and stay on course until the job is done unless the job cannot be done. That is the case here because the solutions in Iraq cannot be accomplished by the military alone.

The neocons running the show have not figured it out yet but 67% of the American public have. This is a disasterous quagmire. The public knows it. Now, even the military knows it.

[glockmail]

Why waste time answering anything you ask when you could dodge out the back door and claim the poll isn't legit? I'm all too well aware of the numerous excuses that you can come up with with. Shit. I'm still waiting for you to prove that your own sources are legit in the thread where you claimed that al-qaeda and Saddam were working together.

Military folks are frequently asked to do the impossible and stay on course until the job is done unless the job cannot be done. That is the case here because the solutions in Iraq cannot be accomplished by the military alone.

The neocons running the show have not figured it out yet but 67% of the American public have. This is a disasterous quagmire. The public knows it. Now, even the military knows it.

Proven that Saddam knew bin Laden's forces were in country, many meetings between the two forces, and this went on for years. Not really a stetch to see that they were in cahoots, but if you believe otherwise, knock yourself out.

Nice secnd try at deflection. Try addressing the issue raised.:pee:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Originally Posted by glockmail
I haven't seen the poll, but assuming for a moment that it is legit, they may not approve of the way the war is being fought, but that has no bearing on their commitment to get the job done.


Military folks are frequently asked to do the impossible and stay on course until the job is done unless the job cannot be done. That is the case here because the solutions in Iraq cannot be accomplished by the military alone.

asked and answered


Proven that Saddam knew bin Laden's forces were in country, many meetings between the two forces, and this went on for years. Not really a stetch to see that they were in cahoots, but if you believe otherwise, knock yourself out.

Like I said, you had three pages to try and prove that connection and you gave me newspaper sources that couldn't be verified and I cited a pentagon report that said you were all wet. You got no proof and you never have. (I'd tell you to bring proof but you'll just re-post that blogger's list with the unverifiable sources again.)

I'll have better luck getting you to admit the Army Times survey is legit.

[glockmail]

asked and answered



Like I said, you had three pages to try and prove that connection and you gave me newspaper sources that couldn't be verified and I cited a pentagon report that said you were all wet. You got no proof and you never have. (I'd tell you to bring proof but you'll just re-post that blogger's list with the unverifiable sources again.)

I'll have better luck getting you to admit the Army Times survey is legit.

That "blog" as you call it is a well known website (milnet.com) with several well respected journalists. The specific article by Ryan Mauro cited about 80 different sources of information, about 1/2 of them mainstream publications like the NYT, BBC, PBS, etc. So you can deny the obvious as much as you want but that doesn't change the fact that bin Laden and Saddam were butt buddies.

With regards to the Army Times survey that I did not challenge, as I said I did not look into the details of it as the stated observance has no bearing on the fact that our soldiers will do what is aked of them, whether or not they understand and agree with the master plans.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

That "blog" as you call it is a well known website (milnet.com) with several well respected journalists. The specific article by Ryan Mauro cited about 80 different sources of information, about 1/2 of them mainstream publications like the NYT, BBC, PBS, etc. So you can deny the obvious as much as you want but that doesn't change the fact that bin Laden and Saddam were butt buddies.

I challenged you to show me the sources that Mauro listed from the WSJ and the NYT and you could not. Anyone can list a bogus source. Mauro did and you fell for it. Prove me wrong.

You couldn't in the other thread. You cannot here. The Pentagon proves you wrong. If I have a choice between believing some blogger I have never heard of with bogus sources or a Pentagon report about whether bin Laden and Saddam were "butt buddies," I'm taking the Pentagon everytime. You can believe that unprovable bullshit if you want. Ooops, sorry, looks like you already have.


With regards to the Army Times survey that I did not challenge, as I said I did not look into the details of it as the stated observance has no bearing on the fact that our soldiers will do what is aked of them, whether or not they understand and agree with the master plans.

You questioned whether it was "legit." Your words, not mine. The troops no longer believe in the course your Boy George is steering us. They have lost faith. So has America.

Looks like you are zero for two tonight. :pee:

[glockmail]

I challenged you to show me the sources that Mauro listed from the WSJ and the NYT and you could not. Anyone can list a bogus source. Mauro did and you fell for it. Prove me wrong.

You couldn't in the other thread. You cannot here. The Pentagon proves you wrong. If I have a choice between believing some blogger I have never heard of with bogus sources or a Pentagon report about whether bin Laden and Saddam were "butt buddies," I'm taking the Pentagon everytime. You can believe that unprovable bullshit if you want. Ooops, sorry, looks like you already have.



You questioned whether it was "legit." Your words, not mine. The troops no longer believe in the course your Boy George is steering us. They have lost faith. So has America.

Looks like you are zero for two tonight. :pee:

As I recall in the other thread you were the one who could not find the original sources from this article: http://www.milnet.com/geo-pol/iraq-terror.html Mauro cites 126 separate sources. Surely you could find one of them? :poke:

Perhaps you could point out where I claimed that the poll was not legit.

Looks like you're 0 fo' 2 this morning. :laugh2:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

As I recall in the other thread you were the one who could not find the original sources from this article: http://www.milnet.com/geo-pol/iraq-terror.html Mauro cites 126 separate sources. Surely you could find one of them? :poke:

I found one that did not support your claim. The others did not exist. They were made up. Prove me wrong.


Perhaps you could point out where I claimed that the poll was not legit.

Your exact words were: I haven't seen the poll, but assuming for a moment that it is legit... That tells me you are calling the poll itself into question. When does the "moment" end and you make up your mind? When will you bother to, in fact, read the poll so you can make up your mind?

You cannot prove the sources used in your al-qaeda-Saddam connection are legit and you can't make up your mind whether an Army Times poll you disagree with is legit and the reality points to the fact that your whole argument isn't legit. You are just wasting everyone's time here. :slap:

[glockmail]

...[1]The others did not exist. They were made up. Prove me wrong.



[2] Your exact words were: I haven't seen the poll, but assuming for a moment that it is legit... That tells me you are calling the poll itself into question. When does the "moment" end and you make up your mind? When will you bother to, in fact, read the poll so you can make up your mind?

...

1. The proof is that the article was tha author's first for MilNet, and he was subsequently re-hired to write several more over several years. So either the entire organization doesn't read what they pay for, are conspiring or you are wrong. My money's on the latter.
2. Actually what it means is that I choose not to challenge the issue but reserve the right to do so at a later time. You appear to have a problem with reading comprehension on this level.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

1. The proof is that the article was tha author's first for MilNet, and he was subsequently re-hired to write several more over several years. So either the entire organization doesn't read what they pay for, are conspiring or you are wrong. My money's on the latter.

You lose. I busted this claim all to hell right here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=38088&postcount=91) and showed that Mauro used bogus claims and further produced a Pentagon report that backed up my side of it. You went on whining that he's a respected author and blah, blah, blah but you could never prove the sources THAT YOU YOURSELF CITED. That makes them bullshit and your claims a waste of time.

Of course, you can go back and try to find the claims yourself but I suspect you don't have the intellectual capacity or the energy to back up your sources. Like I said, you are just wasting my time here.

[glockmail]

You lose. I busted this claim all to hell right here (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=38088&postcount=91) and showed that Mauro used bogus claims and further produced a Pentagon report that backed up my side of it. You went on whining that he's a respected author and blah, blah, blah but you could never prove the sources THAT YOU YOURSELF CITED. That makes them bullshit and your claims a waste of time.

Of course, you can go back and try to find the claims yourself but I suspect you don't have the intellectual capacity or the energy to back up your sources. Like I said, you are just wasting my time here.


It took me an hour of searching but I finally found enough information about your stuff here. First, you took it all from a blog called probush.com, hardly an unbiased site. …..

Yes, I remember that exchange, where you declared victory as well while riling in defeat. Are you Iraqi?

Here’s how it ended up:
Never heard of that site. As your initial assumption is incorrect, your conclusions are obviously flawed. Nice try at attacking the messengers as well. But Kudos for trying. http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=38159&postcount=93

Obviously if you are willing to call a distinguished author a liar because you disagree with his conclusions then you are simply trolling. Sorry, but I don't play "Lucy and the Football". http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=41256&postcount=119

So basically you insist someone's a liar with no proof and hen claim victory. How Liberal.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Are you Iraqi?

Nice Strawman.

Still wasting everyone's time, I see.

You had the chance to verify your "distinguished author" and his claims and you could not/ cannot/ will not. Until you can, he's a liar and you are sheep for believing him. I have a Pentagon report and a Senate Intelligence Committee report to back up my claim there was no Saddam-OBL connection. You have an unverified blogger's claims to the contrary. I claim victory because I have the proof. You got jack.

Prove me wrong. Verify the sources YOU produced.

How neocon of you to expect me to believe you because you said so.

[glockmail]

Nice Strawman.

Still wasting everyone's time, I see.

You had the chance to verify your "distinguished author" and his claims and you could not/ cannot/ will not. Until you can, he's a liar and you are sheep for believing him. I have a Pentagon report and a Senate Intelligence Committee report to back up my claim there was no Saddam-OBL connection. You have an unverified blogger's claims to the contrary. I claim victory because I have the proof. You got jack.

Prove me wrong. Verify the sources YOU produced.

How neocon of you to expect me to believe you because you said so.

Sorry pal, but in the world of politics vs reality, I prefer reality. Read and weep. :laugh2:




http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp
There could hardly be a clearer case--of the ongoing revelations and the ongoing denial--than in the 13 points below, reproduced verbatim from a "Summary of Evidence" prepared by the U.S. government in November 2004. This unclassified document was released by the Pentagon in late March 2005. It details the case for designating an Iraqi member of al Qaeda, currently detained in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, as an "enemy combatant."
1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002. ...

…We know about this relationship not from Bush administration assertions but from internal Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents recovered in Iraq after the war--documents that have been authenticated by a U.S. intelligence community long hostile to the very idea that any such relationship exists.
We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
We have been told by Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, that Saddam Hussein welcomed young al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war, that they "entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," and that the regime "strictly and directly" controlled their activities. We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. We have been told by Ayad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister and a longtime CIA source, that other Iraqi Intelligence documents indicate bin Laden's top deputy was in Iraq for a jihadist conference in September 1999.

[glockmail]

THE REAL WORLD

Saddam and al Qaeda
There's abundant evidence of connections. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110006953

[glockmail]

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp
Saddam Hussein’s regime was a crucial part of that response because it was a safety net for al Qaeda. A place where terror attacks against the United States and the West were planned. A place where Saddam’s intelligence service aided and abetted al Qaeda terrorists planning operations. A place where terrorists could hide safely between attacks. A place where terrorists could lick their wounds. A place where committed terrorists could receive vital training in weapons construction and paramilitary tactics. In short, a platform of precisely the type without which an international terror network cannot succeed.

The president should know he hit the sweet spot during his Fort Bragg speech because all the right people are angry. The New York Times, with predictable disingenuousness, is railing this morning that the 9/11 references in the speech are out of bounds because Iraq had “nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks.” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and the tedious David Gergen, among others, are in Gergen’s words “offended” about use of the 9/11 “trump card.”
We know its true because liberals are angry. :laugh2:

[nevadamedic]

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp We know its true because liberals are angry. :laugh2:

Libs are always angry

[glockmail]

Yet more evidence for liberals to ignore!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=73164&postcount=101

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Sorry pal, but in the world of politics vs reality, I prefer reality. Read and weep. :laugh2:

Another Strawman. You still haven't proven your case with the original "distinguished Author" you cited. I guess I am correct in coming to the conclusion that Mauro is a liar and his sources could not be verified. Instead you throw up another smoke screen to "prove" your point. Since I know that you will claim that THIS author proves the point you want to make, we'll leave Mauro behind and classify him as a liar (which he is.) What a complete waste of time THAT was.

Your article from the Weekly Standard (the neocon Bible) was authored by a Stephen F. Hayes. This clown is a neocon protege of Doug Feith, the discredited neocon who used bogus intelligence to lead America into war with Saddam in the first place. Asking to get the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth from folks like Hayes and Feith is like asking Scooter Libby not to lie to the FBI. Ain't gonna happen. They have been discredited so many times only fools believe what they say.

Most of what Hayes writes is based on Feith's memo which was based on raw intelligence which was later found to be inaccurate. Not surprising given the neocon tendency to use reverse scientific reasoning when postulating their garbage. You see, science holds that you collect the facts, then come up with a theory based on those facts. Neocons come up with the theory first THEN cherry pick their facts to fit the theory. Such is the case here.


1. From 1987 to 1989, the detainee served as an infantryman in the Iraqi Army and received training on the mortar and rocket propelled grenades.
2. A Taliban recruiter in Baghdad convinced the detainee to travel to Afghanistan to join the Taliban in 1994.
3. The detainee admitted he was a member of the Taliban.
4. The detainee pledged allegiance to the supreme leader of the Taliban to help them take over all of Afghanistan.
5. The Taliban issued the detainee a Kalishnikov rifle in November 2000.
6. The detainee worked in a Taliban ammo and arms storage arsenal in Mazar-Es-Sharif organizing weapons and ammunition.
7. The detainee willingly associated with al Qaida members.
8. The detainee was a member of al Qaida.
9. An assistant to Usama Bin Ladin paid the detainee on three separate occasions between 1995 and 1997.
10. The detainee stayed at the al Farouq camp in Darwanta, Afghanistan, where he received 1,000 Rupees to continue his travels.
11. From 1997 to 1998, the detainee acted as a trusted agent for Usama Bin Ladin, executing three separate reconnaissance missions for the al Qaeda leader in Oman, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
12. In August 1998, the detainee traveled to Pakistan with a member of Iraqi Intelligence for the purpose of blowing up the Pakistan, United States and British embassies with chemical mortars.
13. Detainee was arrested by Pakistani authorities in Khudzar, Pakistan, in July 2002.

Where is the Saddam connection? Where does this summary state unequivocably that Saddam sponsored/encouraged/supported al-Qaeda? It doesn't. One lone bozo leaves Iraq to go fight with the Taliban and THAT'S your "connection"? Ha, ha, ha. Pathetic. Also not true. I can see why you put so much faith into this report because it is as close as you have come but still no cigar. No smoking gun either.

The rest of the article is a lot of smoke and mirrors but one relevant line was there and you, tellingly, left it out (as if I wouldn't check up on your sources before I replied):


"The CIA had no [redacted] credible reporting on the leadership of either the Iraqi regime or al Qaeda, which would have enabled it to better define a cooperative relationship, if any did in fact exist."

Nothing has come out since Saddam's fall that disputes that. You got a lot of conjecture but no hard facts and nothing that points to Saddam and al-qaeda planning, organizing, or carrying out any terrorist activities. Nothing. And that's what you have, sonny, nothing.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Yet more evidence for liberals to ignore!

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=73164&postcount=101

Evidence is what's lacking. Opinion: there's plenty of that. To quote one of the officials that allegedly could demonstrate a connection:


Now, we could not prove this in a court of law, but this is intelligence."

Like I said, plenty of opinion. No proof.

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Libs are always angry

And neocons are always stupid.

[glockmail]

And neocons are always stupid. Good luck proving that accusation. But by a review of your last few posts, it is clear that you are. Or just simply anti-American.

[nevadamedic]

Good luck proving that accusation. But by a review of your last few posts, it is clear that you are. Or just simply anti-American.

:laugh2:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

Good luck proving that accusation. But by a review of your last few posts, it is clear that you are. Or just simply anti-American.

Trading stereotypes with NevadaHandClapper is always a lot of fun.

Stupid is the person that makes a claim like you did with that "distinguished author," who was then given the opportunity to prove his idiotic claim, and then falls flat on his face. Strawmen from neocon publications doesn't cut it. You still haven't proven where Mauro got his citations from. Arguing for page after page about it-- now THAT'S stupid. Time to put up on Mauro or shut up.

Take your typical neocon anti-American assertion and shove it up your ass. Stupid. :salute:

[Baron Von Esslingen]

:laugh2:

Stop posting your driver's license picture. It adds nothing to the conversation.

[glockmail]

Trading stereotypes with NevadaHandClapper is always a lot of fun.

Stupid is the person that makes a claim like you did with that "distinguished author," who was then given the opportunity to prove his idiotic claim, and then falls flat on his face. Strawmen from neocon publications doesn't cut it. You still haven't proven where Mauro got his citations from. Arguing for page after page about it-- now THAT'S stupid. Time to put up on Mauro or shut up.

Take your typical neocon anti-American assertion and shove it up your ass. Stupid. :salute:

As you have resorted to insults it is clear to all that you have lost the argument.
Also:

1. The proof of Mauro's honesty was offered in post 386.
2. Additional evidence of the saddam-bin laden connection was offered in posts 390, 391, 392, and 394.

:pee:

[Pale Rider]

As you have resorted to insults it is clear to all that you have lost the argument.
Also:

1. The proof of Mauro's honesty was offered in post 386.
2. Additional evidence of the saddam-bin laden connection was offered in posts 390, 391, 392, and 394.

:pee:

They don't want to hear it glock. They'd rather froth at the mouth like a typical liberal.

[glockmail]

They don't want to hear it glock. They'd rather froth at the mouth like a typical liberal. Yes, their silence is deafening.

[actsnoblemartin]

I have to agree with you, I see liberals (in general), criticizing america far too much, for any and everything. I rarely see them embracing america for its good points.



Its The Right Way, And It's Time For Liberals To Start Supporting America:


Liberals in America are too busy supporting or defending our enemies. They should be spending time defending this country. Many Liberals in America are a bunch of U.N. loving sell-outs. It's time for the rest of us to stand up and say "enough is enough" There have been a number of times in the past four years that Liberals have turned their backs on America. The war in Iraq is an example. Many Liberals continue to bad mouth America and I believe they secretly call for her defeat.

An example of this horrible behavior has roared its ugly head recently. The Liberal media and its Liberal followers have made such a to do with the embarrassing photos of Iraqi soldiers. Get a grip. This type of behavior occurs in war time. While it's deplorable that it occurred, it does happen. America acts like Saints in comparison to other countries or its enemies. We know that our enemy in Iraq has done much worse things to our POW's and the American/British soldiers that they took hostage. Why haven't the Liberals and the media publicized such activity? Does everyone forget that Private Jessica Lynch was raped by Iraqi soldiers? Were the soldiers who raped her the prisoners in the photos?

While the media has spent little or no time reporting the abuses that Iraqi militants have committed against Americans, they have spent days reporting on the Iraqi prisoner scandal. Recently Nick Berg, a U.S. citizen was kidnapped. The animals that kidnapped him, chopped his head off. Where were the Liberals and the the media? There was very limited reporting on the Nick Berg execution. Don't Nick Berg and his family deserve better?

Liberals must wake up. The Iraqi prisoner situation has been over reported. It's definitely not as bad as chopping someone's head off. The very people that the Liberals are defending are not the nicest people on earth. They're not a bunch of innocent prisoners of war. The media should report on the horrible crimes that these prisoners committed. They are not innocent victims. They're a bunch of horrible people. I don't believe that Liberals really care about these prisoners. All they care about is humiliating America.

For American soldiers to make the special forces, they are put through much worse situations then the Iraqi soldiers were put through. They are put through much worse things then being photographed in the nude. Come on people. Stop hating America. Start hating our enemy. Allow America to do anything it needs to win the war on terror. Support our troops. Allow them to fight the good fight without being held up to a microscope. If you are going to point fingers, make sure you're pointing them right back at the enemy.

It's time that Liberals in this country start sending a message to our enemies that they will support this country. It's also time that we shut these Liberals up. We must not allow them to dictate American policy or culture. It's time for the public to forget about the Iraqi scandal and start embracing the Berg family. We must fight back for the crimes committed against Nick Berg. We must attack the scum that committed that crime.

While the Iraqi scandal was terrible, it was blown out of proportion. 1 hour of reporting would have been enough. The President of the United States apologized and took action. Enough is enough. The media should start reporting on the crimes that our enemies commit against us. It's time for Liberals to support America.

http://www.itstherightway.com/support.html

[Pale Rider]

I have to agree with you, I see liberals (in general), criticizing america far too much, for any and everything. I rarely see them embracing america for its good points.

Liberals "HATE" America. We have prime examples everywhere including on this board.

Just look at what the liberals are trying to do with the illegal alien problem. They'd rather hand the country over to 20+ million illegals instead of finding them and kicking their asses out.

And another example of how liberals "HATE" America, is the putrid little trollop we have right here on this board, liberalnation, who sports an avatar of a burning American flag, and thinks it's funny.

[nevadamedic]

Liberals "HATE" America. We have prime examples everywhere including on this board.

Just look at what the liberals are trying to do with the illegal alien problem. They'd rather hand the country over to 20+ million illegals instead of finding them and kicking their asses out.

And another example of how liberals "HATE" America, is the putrid little trollop we have right here on this board, liberalnation, who sports an avatar of a burning American flag, and thinks it's funny.

I don't think she thinks it's funny, I think she is doing it for attention...................

[Pale Rider]

I don't think she thinks it's funny, I think she is doing it for attention...................

I don't. She does it because she knows it's just as good as spitting in the face of the veterans here without being face to face, and that delights the shit out of her.

She's trash, and an American hater.

[red states rule]

I don't. She does it because she knows it's just as good as spitting in the face of the veterans here without being face to face, and that delights the shit out of her.

She's trash, and an American hater.

How do anti war peace nik libs support the troops and America?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0anRyWT9nQg

[nevadamedic]

I don't. She does it because she knows it's just as good as spitting in the face of the veterans here without being face to face, and that delights the shit out of her.

She's trash, and an American hater.

She's doing it because she knows it gets to you.:cool:

[red states rule]

She's doing it because she knows it gets to you.:cool:

and very well I would say

[actsnoblemartin]

At Times they do.



Did I say they were on the side of the enemy? I said they enable the enemy with their actions.

[red states rule]

At Times they do.

Some libs take the word of terrorists and dictators, then the word of Pres Bush and the US government

[bluestatesrule]

We liberals have no problem engaging the enemy....we just believe in fighting the right kind of wars....Iraq was just plain stupid...I am sure Bin Ladin is just sitting back and rubbing his hands together. And you conservatives should stop your crying....you have your damn war...and you have funding for your damn war....with no end in sight. The word out of Washington is that the troops will never leave....we are there for the duration. Hey it is all about the oil. I am sure that makes you very happy.

[red states rule]

We liberals have no problem engaging the enemy....we just believe in fighting the right kind of wars....Iraq was just plain stupid...I am sure Bin Ladin is just sitting back and rubbing his hands together. And you conservatives should stop your crying....you have your damn war...and you have funding for your damn war....with no end in sight. The word out of Washington is that the troops will never leave....we are there for the duration. Hey it is all about the oil. I am sure that makes you very happy.

Yea, Clinton took on the terrorist during his eight years - he took them to court and warned those still on the loose not to do it again

[bullypulpit]

This article may be a little out of date, but the message is as true now as it was then.

LIBERALS NEED TO START SUPPORTING AMERICA!!! NOT SCHEMING AND WORKING FOR IT'S DEFEAT!!!

How is supporting and defending the Constitution incompatible with supporting and defending America?

Without the Constitution, there is no America to defend.

[LuvRPgrl]

How is supporting and defending the Constitution incompatible with supporting and defending America?

Without the Constitution, there is no America to defend.

How is changing the Constitution to what liberals want it to read, supporting the Constitution? You consider it a living, breathing document. Horseshit.

[LuvRPgrl]

We liberals have no problem engaging the enemy....we just believe in fighting the right kind of wars....Iraq was just plain stupid...I am sure Bin Ladin is just sitting back and rubbing his hands together. And you conservatives should stop your crying....you have your damn war...and you have funding for your damn war....with no end in sight. The word out of Washington is that the troops will never leave....we are there for the duration. Hey it is all about the oil. I am sure that makes you very happy.

Its all about the oil??? Oh my god, you dont really believe that pathetic bumper sticker mentality do you I mean, c'mon, you arent that stupid are you?

[typomaniac]

How is changing the Constitution to what liberals want it to read, supporting the Constitution? You consider it a living, breathing document. Horseshit.
Yeah, much better for us rightwads just to let Bush ignore the Constitution and keep on sucking his dick. :rolleyes:

[bullypulpit]

How is changing the Constitution to what liberals want it to read, supporting the Constitution? You consider it a living, breathing document. Horseshit.

It is a living, breathing document. The Bush administration, however, is doing its utmost to suffocate it.

[JohnDoe]

Its all about the oil??? Oh my god, you dont really believe that pathetic bumper sticker mentality do you I mean, c'mon, you arent that stupid are you?
What is it about then LuvRP, in your words?

I personally believe that it was about Oil and Oil security in the region. It may NOT have been what the average American public was told by the administration, but it most certainly was about "shoring up" the region so that oil would flow out of it, to us, and perhaps a wee bit of thinking that this would make it safer for Israel too.

and by any means, I do not think that speculation of such is stupid, but maybe enlightened?

It is ALL about the oil Luv, especially now!!!

The Saudi Insurgents are involved because of power and oil, the Iranians are involved on the other side of the insurgence because of power and oil...the more havok that goes on in Iraq, the better it is for those 2 countries financially and we are still in Iraq to prevent them from getting control of the Iraqi oil.... It's about the oil....Luv, imho.

jd

[bullypulpit]

Yeah, much better for us rightwads just to let Bush ignore the Constitution and keep on sucking his dick. :rolleyes:

It would be REALLY nice if someone would give Bush a blow-job so we could impeach him.

[LuvRPgrl]

It would be REALLY nice if someone would give Bush a blow-job so we could impeach him.

:suck::suck: Go ahead, you have our permission. Just dont get any on your dress.

[LuvRPgrl]

What is it about then LuvRP, in your words?

I personally believe that it was about Oil and Oil security in the region. It may NOT have been what the average American public was told by the administration, but it most certainly was about "shoring up" the region so that oil would flow out of it, to us, and perhaps a wee bit of thinking that this would make it safer for Israel too.

and by any means, I do not think that speculation of such is stupid, but maybe enlightened?

It is ALL about the oil Luv, especially now!!!

The Saudi Insurgents are involved because of power and oil, the Iranians are involved on the other side of the insurgence because of power and oil...the more havok that goes on in Iraq, the better it is for those 2 countries financially and we are still in Iraq to prevent them from getting control of the Iraqi oil.... It's about the oil....Luv, imho.

jd

Because I know its NOT for the oil, doesnt mean I know the reason it is for. the reasons are many and complex.

I know its NOT about the oil because we could have simply cozied up to Saddam and have him export oil to us, easier and cheaper than what we have now.

[typomaniac]

Because I know its NOT for the oil, doesnt mean I know the reason it is for. the reasons are many and complex.

I know its NOT about the oil because we could have simply cozied up to Saddam and have him export oil to us, easier and cheaper than what we have now.

After the 1991 war!? There was no way he'd "cozy up" to us at that point. How old are you, kid?

[LuvRPgrl]

After the 1991 war!? There was no way he'd "cozy up" to us at that point. How old are you, kid?

U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from Iraq (Thousand Barrels)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 423
1997 0 0 1,070 2532 3174 3461 2728 10 0 5487 6614 7454
1998 1,110 0 3,947 7606 4243 8102 8854 22093 19514 19,728 16,267 15,054
1999 15050 19062 24,522 24,879 23,258 23,195 21,074 20,825 22,242 28,580 21,383 20,694

2000 7,879 21,757 14,506 19,705 13,593 24,912 23,636 23,723 22,935 20,236 17,541 16,381
2001 9,596 7,088 17,942 26,401 31,356 24,304 22,003 17,455 35,771 36,501 26,661 34,920
2002 30,636 19,852 25,209 18,584 14,947 5,015 9,327 7,620 4,428 7,695 12,100 12,225
2003 19,642 26,963 21,110 22,157 3,980 0 2,091 3,875 10,869 22,771 21,194 21,011
2004 17,927 18,725 20,301 23,069 20,891 19,069 18,373 24,805 18,680 20,070 18,872 19,409

2005 15,272 15,435 16,974 17,069 18,726 18,241 19,915 11,442 13,775 17,890 17,148 12,100
2006 16,497 12,501 14,766 15,934 20,650 18,499 18,354 19,218 19,637 15,657 17,179 12,974
2007 16,449 9,091 16,206 16,864 10,585 17,182 14,265

[typomaniac]

U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from Iraq (Thousand Barrels)

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1996 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 423
1997 0 0 1,070 2532 3174 3461 2728 10 0 5487 6614 7454
1998 1,110 0 3,947 7606 4243 8102 8854 22093 19514 19,728 16,267 15,054
1999 15050 19062 24,522 24,879 23,258 23,195 21,074 20,825 22,242 28,580 21,383 20,694

2000 7,879 21,757 14,506 19,705 13,593 24,912 23,636 23,723 22,935 20,236 17,541 16,381
2001 9,596 7,088 17,942 26,401 31,356 24,304 22,003 17,455 35,771 36,501 26,661 34,920
2002 30,636 19,852 25,209 18,584 14,947 5,015 9,327 7,620 4,428 7,695 12,100 12,225
2003 19,642 26,963 21,110 22,157 3,980 0 2,091 3,875 10,869 22,771 21,194 21,011
2004 17,927 18,725 20,301 23,069 20,891 19,069 18,373 24,805 18,680 20,070 18,872 19,409

2005 15,272 15,435 16,974 17,069 18,726 18,241 19,915 11,442 13,775 17,890 17,148 12,100
2006 16,497 12,501 14,766 15,934 20,650 18,499 18,354 19,218 19,637 15,657 17,179 12,974
2007 16,449 9,091 16,206 16,864 10,585 17,182 14,265

Let's see: you have no :link:, you have no info about whether these barrels were actually imported FROM IRAQ directly or stopped off somewhere like Dubai, AND you still haven't told me how old you are.

Any more losers want to pretend the war had nothing to do with oil?

[REDWHITEBLUE2]

Let's see: you have no :link:, you have no info about whether these barrels were actually imported FROM IRAQ directly or stopped off somewhere like Dubai, AND you still haven't told me how old you are.

Any more losers want to pretend the war had nothing to do with oil? Sounds like you need to change the tinfoil in your hat :poke:

[typomaniac]

Sounds like you need to change the tinfoil in your hat :poke:

Okay, one more. :D

[Austin.Texas]

President Eisenhower said that supporting a President when he is wrong makes you a bad American.

[typomaniac]

President Eisenhower said that supporting a President when he is wrong makes you a bad American.

So did Teddy Roosevelt. Both Republicans, too! :)

[nevadamedic]

Sounds like you need to change the tinfoil in your hat :poke:

:laugh2:

[LuvRPgrl]

Let's see: you have no :link:, you have no info about whether these barrels were actually imported FROM IRAQ directly or stopped off somewhere like Dubai, AND you still haven't told me how old you are.

Any more losers want to pretend the war had nothing to do with oil?

Go look it up yourself. Im not goonna do your homework. Whether it was imported direct from Iraq or not is irrelevant. If we were already getting the oil, directly or indirectly, we were still getting it, no need to oust him In fact, it would just disrupt the oil we were getting. Im 113 years old.

[Pale Rider]

President Eisenhower said that supporting a President when he is wrong makes you a bad American.

Cool avatar.

I'll tell ya, I voted for bush, and now, I regret it as one of the worst things I've ever done. He's a complete and utter jack ass, for getting us into this war, for aiding and abetting the mexican invasion, and for secretly pushing the bush globalist NAU/New World Order agenda. They ought to try the son of a bitch for treason.

[avatar4321]

President Eisenhower said that supporting a President when he is wrong makes you a bad American.

Yeah, but the converse is true too. Attacking a President when he is right makes you a bad American.

[Abbey Marie]

President Eisenhower said that supporting a President when he is wrong makes you a bad American


Yeah, but the converse is true too. Attacking a President when he is right makes you a bad American.

And in whose opinion is that President wrong? Whose opinion is the "correct" one? Can an opinion be correct or incorrect? Who decides? What about the fact that we are not privy to all of the information that goes in to making certain decisions at that level?

[glockmail]

:suck::suck: Go ahead, you have our permission. Just dont get any on your dress. :lol: