A Challenge to Congress.................. (house of representatives, unemployed, fast food, minimum wage)

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

Because we were protecting our own interests, not just theirs.

And THAT is why so many intelligence analysts have independently reached the conclusion that the Iraq invasion HAS NOT made America safer? Maybe that's YOUR interest but such a cost in blood and $ TO NOT make America safer is most certainly NOT my interest.

You need to do better thn your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

And THAT is why so many intelligence analysts have independently reached the conclusion that the Iraq invasion HAS NOT made America safer? Maybe that's YOUR interest but such a cost in blood and $ TO NOT make America safer is most certainly NOT my interest.

You need to do better thn your UNSUBSTANTIATED claim.

My claim is that, factually speaking, we've not been attacked by Al Qaeda since the war began. I would suspect that it would be in your interest to prevent the detination of a dirty bomb on American soil.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

My claim is that, factually speaking, we've not been attacked by Al Qaeda since the war began. I would suspect that it would be in your interest to prevent the detination of a dirty bomb on American soil.

Well using your logic I could make the case that we have not been attacked by al Qaeda since I bought my last motorcycle so that must be a factor. You've offered no proof that invading Iraq is why we haven't been attacked and you conveniently ignore the fact that two members of the coalition have been attacked since the invasion. FACT BASED PROOF that the invasion has NOT BEEN 100% effective in preventing terrorist attacks. Certainly more proof than you've offered.

[burdell]

Originally Posted by silas777

where does this right come from?

Many who actually respect and believe in the Constitution rather than just pay it lip service take "promote the general welfare" to include such things as health care.

With a president who has attempted more end runs around the Constitution than all his predecessors combined it's no wonder there's so little belief in that fine document anymore.

People would rather lie down like lambs and let their mail be opened, their phone tapped without a warrant, their Email monitored, all in the name of freedom that they so willingly give up.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

Well using your logic I could make the case that we have not been attacked by al Qaeda since I bought my last motorcycle so that must be a factor. You've offered no proof that invading Iraq is why we haven't been attacked and you conveniently ignore the fact that two members of the coalition have been attacked since the invasion. FACT BASED PROOF that the invasion has NOT BEEN 100% effective in preventing terrorist attacks. Certainly more proof than you've offered.

So, anything less than 100%, you consider failure. Zarqawi is dead because of the war in Iraq, there's one fact. I've already address the attacks on the other members of the coalition and I'm not willing to rehash that.

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by burdell

Many who actually respect and believe in the Constitution rather than just pay it lip service take "promote the general welfare" to include such things as health care.

With a president who has attempted more end runs around the Constitution than all his predecessors combined it's no wonder there's so little belief in that fine document anymore.

People would rather lie down like lambs and let their mail be opened, their phone tapped without a warrant, their Email monitored, all in the name of freedom that they so willingly give up.

whatever happened to a persons right to dignity-? life, liberty and pursuit of happiness- that's a little hard when you are dying of testicular cancer because your insurance company decides profit margins override a human life. If this makes me a socialist, then I am proud to be one (though I was a registered Republican, BB (before Bush)

sunny

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

So, anything less than 100%, you consider failure. Zarqawi is dead because of the war in Iraq, there's one fact. I've already address the attacks on the other members of the coalition and I'm not willing to rehash that.

100% ? The FACT is you've offered no proof that the invasion has prevented anything, it's impossible to prove something like that. Zarqawi is dead, big deal. If you're trying to say that this one death was worth the cost so far, and we have no idea what the final cost will be, I would argue that point. And the region was arguably more stable with Saddam in control.

The number one priority should be protecting the US, the FACT that sixteen indpendent intelligence agencies reached the conclusion that the Iraq invasion had not made the US safer will have me believing this is a real ****-up until someone offers proof otherwise.

[Amaznjohn]

Originally Posted by burdell

100% ? The FACT is you've offered no proof that the invasion has prevented anything, it's impossible to prove something like that. Zarqawi is dead, big deal. If you're trying to say that this one death was worth the cost so far, and we have no idea what the final cost will be, I would argue that point. And the region was arguably more stable with Saddam in control.

The number one priority should be protecting the US, the FACT that sixteen indpendent intelligence agencies reached the conclusion that the Iraq invasion had not made the US safer will have me believing this is a real ****-up until someone offers proof otherwise.

One simple question. If we had not attacked Iraq, do you think that Al Qaeda would've attacked us again on American soil?

[burdell]

Originally Posted by Amaznjohn

One simple question. If we had not attacked Iraq, do you think that Al Qaeda would've attacked us again on American soil?

That would not only depend on al Qaeda but on whether the president would've abandoned his agenda of invading Iraq come hell or high water and actually concentrated on his job of protecting America. I don't think they would have successfully attacked on 9/11 had airport security done its job yet we've thrown billions at Iraq and little at airport security. And I'm not trying to place blame, my hindsight's as good as anyone's The truth is few Amewricans would stand for what we'd actually have to go through to truly secure many areas. I'd feel more secure if port safety was a priority rather than deposing Bush I's nemesis. I believe Iraq just uses up too many of our resources and focuses them in one small little area when the threat is worldwide.

[dreamofmonterey]

Originally Posted by sunnyhelena

whatever happened to a persons right to dignity-? life, liberty and pursuit of happiness- that's a little hard when you are dying of testicular cancer because your insurance company decides profit margins override a human life. If this makes me a socialist, then I am proud to be one (though I was a registered Republican, BB (before Bush)

sunny

I notice whenever a post brings up human rights. and peoples right to dignity, the discussion turns to terrorism. This topic was about HEALTHCARE.