Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You know what the point is....but i'll be glad to point it out: The anti-war Left despise Bush...despise the Iraq war...and despise anyone who points out their hypocrisy. So, here I am, pointing out to you that the anti-war Left are celebrating the death of Osama bin Laden....which was made possible through a guy caught in Iraq as part of the Bush anti-terror strategy. But yet you won't offer one ounce of praise to that effect.
Comprende? Of course you do. Hypocrites always know their folly.
LOL....attacking Iraq was an anti-terror strategy? That must be some kind of harebrained strategy you have there. Though it's not unexpected coming form your brain dead idol, George Bush. Imagine that. Bin Laden is in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. Yet George Bush attacks Iraq thousands of miles away where bin Laden is not. Bush could have focused his attention on the original target, but no, he has to go about it in a convoluted roundabout way, spending trillions of dollars and wasting thousands of American lives in the process. This is not only not fiscally conservative. It's downright moronic.
Yep. Please go about it, instead of the usual whining and complaining.
Quote:
So you single handidly have evidence that the 911 commission report was wrong? I'm anxiously awaiting for it..
I wouldn't dare claim having any evidence. But it sounds like you're an expert on the subject. Please enlighten me and how this all ties together. I will switch to listen mode...
LOL....attacking Iraq was an anti-terror strategy? That must be some kind of harebrained strategy you have there. Though it's not unexpected coming form your brain dead idol, George Bush. Imagine that. Bin Laden is in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. Yet George Bush attacks Iraq thousands of miles away where bin Laden is not. Bush could have focused his attention on the original target, but no, he has to go about it in a convoluted roundabout way, spending trillions of dollars and wasting thousands of American lives in the process. This is not only not fiscally conservative. It's downright moronic.
What's even more moronic is that you would think we're actually leaving Iraq. A billion dollar embassy and billions more expended on war and you think we're actually leaving? LOL In other words, you don't have the first clue about why Iraq was chosen as a place to settle ME affairs other than what your Leftist Puppet Master's tell you the reasons are.
Wake up. Iraq is a long term endeavor for this nation, and it was strategically chosen because of its location. Get a map. It will do you some good.
It doesn't matter. Not at all. We took the fight to the terrorists. They showed up, we fulfilled our end of the deal. Now Osama is dead. The only failure is your ability to reconcile this inconvenient truth.
So by your logic, we can send our troops to places where there are no terrorists, hoping to attract them like flies. So why don't we invade, say, Australia? Hopefully, terrorists will show up there so we can swat them dead. Is this what you learned from George Bush?
Yep. Please go about it, instead of the usual whining and complaining.
Makes me wonder why you are posting on a thread that you claim to not know what its about..
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
I wouldn't dare claim having any evidence. But it sounds like you're an expert on the subject. Please enlighten me and how this all ties together. I will switch to listen mode...
please do 2 things
1) Change your name, Einstein would be embarassed
2) Educate yourself before posting on a thread you admit you dont know what its about. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Quote:
Originally Posted by ndfmnlf
So by your logic, we can send our troops to places where there are no terrorists, hoping to attract them like flies. So why don't we invade, say, Australia? Hopefully, terrorists will show up there so we can swat them dead. Is this what you learned from George Bush?
What's even more moronic is that you would think we're actually leaving Iraq. A billion dollar embassy and billions more expended on war and you think we're actually leaving? LOL In other words, you don't have the first clue about why Iraq was chosen as a place to settle ME affairs other than what your Leftist Puppet Master's tell you the reasons are.
Wake up. Iraq is a long term endeavor for this nation, and it was strategically chosen because of its location. Get a map. It will do you some good.
Are you suggesting that what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al told us about why we invaded Iraq wasn't true?
I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked.
Are you suggesting that what Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al told us about why we invaded Iraq wasn't true?
I'm shocked I tell you. Shocked.
I'm suggesting it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at a map and plot where our known enemies are. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why taking the fight to the terrorist was the lesser of all evils. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Iraq and its murderous dictator were ripe for the taking.
The sad part is that people actually listen to this government when it speaks. I didn't need to hear GWB speak to understand what was actually being said. Liberals have never been known for extraordinary foresight. Their constant cackling over the Iraq War is solid proof. All you needed was a map, and you would have been enlightened.
Makes me wonder why you are posting on a thread that you claim to not know what its about..
It doesn't take much to make you wonder about anything. It would be a good start if you paid attention to what people are posting.
Quote:
please do 2 things
1) Change your name, Einstein would be embarassed
2) Educate yourself before posting on a thread you admit you dont know what its about. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
1) Stop worrying about Einstein, and start worrying about yourself before it is too late. In the mean time, I stand to enjoy your misery dealing with my screen name.
2) Uneducated me appears to know better than educated you. Like I said, you need help. Make that, a LOT of help. Lets see...
"In my judgment, Saddam assessed Usama bin Ladin and al-Qaida as a threat rather than a potential partner to be exploited to attack the United States."
So, how did you figure out Saddam's cozy relationship with Usama Bin Laden from the report you've educated yourself with to the best of your capacity?
I should be embarrassed to even trying to have a debate with you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That must be some kind of harebrained strategy you have there. Though it's not unexpected coming form your brain dead idol, George Bush. Imagine that. Bin Laden is in the Afghanistan/Pakistan region. Yet George Bush attacks Iraq thousands of miles away where bin Laden is not. Bush could have focused his attention on the original target, but no, he has to go about it in a convoluted roundabout way, spending trillions of dollars and wasting thousands of American lives in the process. This is not only not fiscally conservative. It's downright moronic.
