Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Mr. Intenseone on January 11, 2007, 08:50:31 AM
-
..........and be fair >:(!
-
Damn good speech. We have no other choice than to try to WIN this war. We can't choose the democrats option of LOSING the war, the damage that would do to this country is catastophic. Democrats in my mind wanting an immediate pullout, stop funding the war, well hell, democrats should be shot for even thinking thats an option.
Not one attack on U.S. soil since this war began. Thank you for being strong and not wavering President Bush. I salute you sir!
-
It was a solid speech supporting a half-assed solution to very big problem.
Either put in 250k forces in SUmmer 2007 and kill everything with an attitude in 2 months...
Or pull out Americans gradually.
To anyone with a brain, the "insert 20k now and 92,000 over the next 5 years" appraoch means slowly feeding more soldiers to the insurgents. If you think there aren't going to be 92,000 Iraqis in the next 5 years, you're crazy. There will be many more.
Of course, bush isn't working for you and I, or he would do what it takes to win, or go home. Bush is working for the group of firms which profits greatly from war. I would like to win the war there. I would hate to leave a void. but it's pretty clear that Bush isn't trying to win, he's just increasing spending.
It's all about dollars, people. It's now clear to 70% of Americans.
-
and for anyone who wants to accuse me of hating bush, YOU defend the policy of 21k new men.
it's nothing but a drop in the bucket. That's 5000 new men on the ground maximum at any one time. Do you know how big Baghdad is? Essentially, every 10th US patrol witll have an extra man on it. Sure, it'll help some. but when a prick in a Chevette with a backseat of C4 drives into a humvee, it just means 4 dead soldiers instead of 3.
OVERWHELMING force is needed to win. The generals keep saying it, and they keep getting moved out because of it.
I DARE someone here to defend the 21k number. IMO it is nothing but an inflationary raise (to match the growth in insurgent numbers this year). And since it's been a stalemate with the ratios we've had for the last 3 years, it's going to continue being a stalemate for the next year. if you argueo therwise, please explain why.
and the 92k number is just a 18,400 per year soldier increase. Inflationary to match the insurgent growth. Geez, I dont know why people are too dense to see this. Bush is simply matching the growth of the insurgents. Nothing more. The result will be a continued stalemate, nothing more.
-
and for anyone who wants to accuse me of hating bush, YOU defend the policy of 21k new men.
it's nothing but a drop in the bucket. That's 5000 new men on the ground maximum at any one time. Do you know how big Baghdad is? Essentially, every 10th US patrol witll have an extra man on it. Sure, it'll help some. but when a prick in a Chevette with a backseat of C4 drives into a humvee, it just means 4 dead soldiers instead of 3.
OVERWHELMING force is needed to win. The generals keep saying it, and they keep getting moved out because of it.
I DARE someone here to defend the 21k number. IMO it is nothing but an inflationary raise (to match the growth in insurgent numbers this year). And since it's been a stalemate with the ratios we've had for the last 3 years, it's going to continue being a stalemate for the next year. if you argueo therwise, please explain why.
and the 92k number is just a 18,400 per year soldier increase. Inflationary to match the insurgent growth. Geez, I dont know why people are too dense to see this. Bush is simply matching the growth of the insurgents. Nothing more. The result will be a continued stalemate, nothing more.
because I trust our president and also know hes in this to win not spend more money, thats assanine and you lose credibility even saying that. and i trust the presidents knowledge more than some hummer off getbig.com
-
..........and be fair >:(!
You're wanting to be fair? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
-
because I trust our president and also know hes in this to win not spend more money, thats assanine and you lose credibility even saying that. and i trust the presidents knowledge more than some hummer off getbig.com
You trust his prediction of a fast quick war in Iraq?
If he's in it to win......... he sucks at it.
-
You're wanting to be fair? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
That's what I was thinking... Fair is out the window Intenseone... You tossed it out a long time ago and so did Bush...
-
Damn good speech. We have no other choice than to try to WIN this war. We can't choose the democrats option of LOSING the war, the damage that would do to this country is catastophic. Democrats in my mind wanting an immediate pullout, stop funding the war, well hell, democrats should be shot for even thinking thats an option.
Not one attack on U.S. soil since this war began. Thank you for being strong and not wavering President Bush. I salute you sir!
Bravo.
i like the dems statement; "it's time to start ending the war."
not winning but ending.
sad
-
because I trust our president and also know hes in this to win not spend more money, thats assanine and you lose credibility even saying that. and i trust the presidents knowledge more than some hummer off getbig.com
And what knowledge is that? in december, he said we were winning the war..in january..we are not...his generals say 20k men won't do jack s**t but he knows better than seasoned, career military men? the ISG makes recommendations to him but he ignores all of them..but he knows better than all those in that group? what has president bush said or done to warrant this trust?
-
It was a solid speech supporting a half-assed solution to very big problem.
Either put in 250k forces in SUmmer 2007 and kill everything with an attitude in 2 months...
Or pull out Americans gradually.
To anyone with a brain, the "insert 20k now and 92,000 over the next 5 years" appraoch means slowly feeding more soldiers to the insurgents. If you think there aren't going to be 92,000 Iraqis in the next 5 years, you're crazy. There will be many more.
Of course, bush isn't working for you and I, or he would do what it takes to win, or go home. Bush is working for the group of firms which profits greatly from war. I would like to win the war there. I would hate to leave a void. but it's pretty clear that Bush isn't trying to win, he's just increasing spending.
It's all about dollars, people. It's now clear to 70% of Americans.
I agree, 20,000 isn't nearly enough, I said that we needed at least 100,000 more troops, pulling out IS NOT an option, last night in is speech is said that if the Iraqi Government (Malaki sp) did not cooporate that they will not have our support anymore, saying that Bush does not want to win is an utterly rediculous statement...the truth is the Liberals don't want us to win and thats a fact!!
-
I agree, 20,000 isn't nearly enough, I said that we needed at least 100,000 more troops, pulling out IS NOT an option, last night in is speech is said that if the Iraqi Government (Malaki sp) did not cooporate that they will not have our support anymore, saying that Bush does not want to win is an utterly rediculous statement...the truth is the Liberals don't want us to win and thats a fact!!
woah, this isn't about liberals. it's about bush's speech and 21,500 soldier plan.
I want to win the war there. But this is what baffles me about bush's plan:
If the Generals, most republicans, and many democrats, all say that 21,500 isn't enough, WHO is telling him to select 21,500?
The generals and most sensible folks say "put in 100k quickly and crush them". They can't stop Bush, the forces are available on a short term basis. Why not do that? The 21,500 number now and 92,000 level over 5 years is nothing more than maintenance forces. i don't think anyone can argue that. Treading water. period.
because I trust our president and also know hes in this to win not spend more money, thats assanine and you lose credibility even saying that. and i trust the presidents knowledge more than some hummer off getbig.com
No, it's not asinine. Look at some of our past wars. They were "maintenance" wars designed to keep a region in turmoil so that the US could remain and protect vital interests in the region, without the messiness of WINNING and turning over control, at which point we would have to leave and the iraqis could start making deals with neighbors and would quickly become danger.
You're wrong, rooster, because you don't understand our purpose there. The 21,500 number and 92k over 5 years figures - these further support my claim. This is a maintenace war. We want to MAINTAIN a presence. our troops are only growing as fast as the insurgents are. Do you not find this weird?
If you disagree, go ahead and explain putting in just enough troops to match insurgent growth, with the existing ratio has proven wrong for 3 years.
-
so he wants to send in 20,000 more security guards...I say cut our losses take off, let the Iraqies fight it all out for a few years and we take the 1/4 billion we were spending everyday and put it toward securing this country inhouse...Borders and ports..
-
I agree, 20,000 isn't nearly enough, I said that we needed at least 100,000 more troops, pulling out IS NOT an option, last night in is speech is said that if the Iraqi Government (Malaki sp) did not cooporate that they will not have our support anymore, saying that Bush does not want to win is an utterly rediculous statement...the truth is the Liberals don't want us to win and thats a fact!!
I thought you said be fair?
I guess that only applies if you support Bush's brilliant blunder.
-
so he wants to send in 20,000 more security guards...I say cut our losses take off, let the Iraqies fight it all out for a few years and we take the 1/4 billion we were spending everyday and put it toward securing this country inhouse...Borders and ports..
Why do that?..the republicans and georgie W. say 1/4 billion spent on a bunch of hammerheads in the desert is money well spent...especially when a half that money ends up back in no-bid govt contracts.
-
Bravo.
i like the dems statement; "it's time to start ending the war."
not winning but ending.
sad
"ending" what is there to win?
DUH more contracts!
-
"ending" what is there to win?
DUH more contracts!
like bush said, with the enemy we are fighting, there will never be a clear cut day of victory. we will fight these fanatics for a very long time.
when the iraqi military can hold the towns, and neighborhoods by themselves without the US would be winning. not won but winning
-
like bush said, with the enemy we are fighting, there will never be a clear cut day of victory. we will fight these fanatics for a very long time.
when the iraqi military can hold the towns, and neighborhoods by themselves without the US would be winning. not won but winning
you will see iraq become another afghan. when we invade iran.
you will see iran become another afghan. when we invade syria.
you will see all 4 sit in a 'holding pattern' when we take on whoever is next.
-
you will see iraq become another afghan. when we invade iran.
you will see iran become another afghan. when we invade syria.
you will see all 4 sit in a 'holding pattern' when we take on whoever is next.
what makes you believe these things.
-
like bush said, with the enemy we are fighting, there will never be a clear cut day of victory. we will fight these fanatics for a very long time.
Yeah he made it a little "fuzzzy" don't you think. Hmmmm
There is not going to be a victory, it's pull out know or pull out later. Troops are stretched to thin right now, and with Iran knocking things 'outlook not so good'
I though it was pretty funny how Bush decalared "Victory will not look like the ones our fathers and grandfathers achieved. There will be no surrender ceremony on the deck of a battleship."
-
what makes you believe these things.
Because
1) Stalemates are very profitable for the standing adminstration (they borrow for war spending, which boosts the economy)
2) Stalemates are good for defense contractors, as they don't sell a lot of bombs in peacetimes or after victory.
3) Stalemates are very good for companies like haliburton, who overcharges for the food and shelter of soldiers.
4) Stalemates are actually good for media companies
5) History has shown this pattern of us occupying areas, never losing but never winning, until popular opinion pulls us out.
-
Because
1) Stalemates are very profitable for the standing adminstration (they borrow for war spending, which boosts the economy)
2) Stalemates are good for defense contractors, as they don't sell a lot of bombs in peacetimes or after victory.
3) Stalemates are very good for companies like haliburton, who overcharges for the food and shelter of soldiers.
4) Stalemates are actually good for media companies
5) History has shown this pattern of us occupying areas, never losing but never winning, until popular opinion pulls us out.
Very nice summary.
-
Because
1) Stalemates are very profitable for the standing adminstration (they borrow for war spending, which boosts the economy)
2) Stalemates are good for defense contractors, as they don't sell a lot of bombs in peacetimes or after victory.
3) Stalemates are very good for companies like haliburton, who overcharges for the food and shelter of soldiers.
4) Stalemates are actually good for media companies
5) History has shown this pattern of us occupying areas, never losing but never winning, until popular opinion pulls us out.
huh??
that doesn't explain to me why you think we will invade iran and syria.
-
huh??
that doesn't explain to me why you think we will invade iran and syria.
Because instead of these groups being able to profit once (afghan) or twice (iran), they can profit 3 or 4 times.
Globally, it means the twunts in charge can't get swindled or invaded, etc - we remain, fighting with a group of local douchebags who resent us. For these groups, it means more money. The only losers are the civilians we're invading, our children's economy, the dead US forces, etc.
I think Bush's cabinet's PNAC plan called for invasion and occupation of one nation after another in the middle east, every 2 or 3 years, until we control the region's resources.
It's gonna happen. This will later be known as the period of "democracy spreading in the region" when in reality, we are just getting their sexy oil.
You don't have to believe me. Just save this post and open it every time we invade another nation. Iran is next, and we'll be just holding pattern in the other countries. Syria, while we sit in the other 3. Then, who knows. But this was planned by Bush's people in 2000 (google PNAC)
-
Because instead of these groups being able to profit once (afghan) or twice (iran), they can profit 3 or 4 times.
Globally, it means the twunts in charge can't get swindled or invaded, etc - we remain, fighting with a group of local douchebags who resent us. For these groups, it means more money. The only losers are the civilians we're invading, our children's economy, the dead US forces, etc.
I think Bush's cabinet's PNAC plan called for invasion and occupation of one nation after another in the middle east, every 2 or 3 years, until we control the region's resources.
It's gonna happen. This will later be known as the period of "democracy spreading in the region" when in reality, we are just getting their sexy oil.
You don't have to believe me. Just save this post and open it every time we invade another nation. Iran is next, and we'll be just holding pattern in the other countries. Syria, while we sit in the other 3. Then, who knows. But this was planned by Bush's people in 2000 (google PNAC)
i refuse to believe our troops are dying for profits only. that's too outrageous.
i don't believe we will invade iran. or occupy as you say
what i do believe is we will begin to fight iran on a smaller scale. we are fighting them now in iraq anyway. we are just going to move the fighting closer to the border of iran.
if we don't, iraq doesn't stand a chance.
this nutbag in iran is probably on his way out, from what i've read about.
-
woah, this isn't about liberals. it's about bush's speech and 21,500 soldier plan.
I want to win the war there. But this is what baffles me about bush's plan:
If the Generals, most republicans, and many democrats, all say that 21,500 isn't enough, WHO is telling him to select 21,500?
The generals and most sensible folks say "put in 100k quickly and crush them". They can't stop Bush, the forces are available on a short term basis. Why not do that? The 21,500 number now and 92,000 level over 5 years is nothing more than maintenance forces. i don't think anyone can argue that. Treading water. period.
No, it's not asinine. Look at some of our past wars. They were "maintenance" wars designed to keep a region in turmoil so that the US could remain and protect vital interests in the region, without the messiness of WINNING and turning over control, at which point we would have to leave and the iraqis could start making deals with neighbors and would quickly become danger.
You're wrong, rooster, because you don't understand our purpose there. The 21,500 number and 92k over 5 years figures - these further support my claim. This is a maintenace war. We want to MAINTAIN a presence. our troops are only growing as fast as the insurgents are. Do you not find this weird?
If you disagree, go ahead and explain putting in just enough troops to match insurgent growth, with the existing ratio has proven wrong for 3 years.
Sorry Rob, this isn't exactly a bi-partisan effort as the Dems promised, by them saying that is was just a way to get (barely) the majority of the election...if it was a bi-partisan effort the President wouldn't be so much up aginst the wall.
Do you actually think the President came up with those numbers all on his own? It's the Generals who comes up with the war stragities not the President, he finalizes the decisions. Rob, you say your a conservative but 95% of the posts you make are blatent Liberal...it saddens me really!
-
Ok, anti war bitches, read my typed print- WE CANNOT LOSE CONTROL OF IRAQ. If we do, Iran will jump in there as quickly as possible, egypt and other middle eastern countries will jump in there as well, trying to seize control of the area. What happens next is predicatable, there will be wide spread violence on a scale not seen in a long time, and china russia and the US will be forced to get troops in the to make sure the global oil supply is not disrupted. AKA WW3. If russia or china puts themselves in a position to control world oil, you think theyre playing friendly with us? Fook no, ALL PERSONS on this planet look out for themselves in one way or another, this is true for the US as well. How would you like to live like our ancestors did in the 1800's? Our way of life ends if our supply of oil gets disrupted, and you liberals can thank YOURSELVES for this fucking mess as you all bitch and complain when we try to drill anywhere near this country, thus forcing our dependance internationally. If we could drill in alaska like we'd like to, this wouldn't be happening. But NOOOOOO, there are birds and small mammals out there! Even though we can drill without destroying the place, the small worthless bags of fur might, might NOTICE there is something that doesnt belong there! Well we can't have that, even though most "activists" have never even set foot in these "sanctuaries" so we have to import. I for one think an easier way to get things done is just invade mexico, boot out there idiot drug cartel government, and take over their oil. They have a large portion of the worlds oil, untapped, from what I hear. I'd rather our troops face dirty water, bad burritos, and filthy prositutes than crazed religious nutjubs with bombs on their chests any day. Oh yeah,l the speech was one of the best he's ever given. I think it lends a lot of support to the theory that he is actually very intelligent, and "dumbs down" for the camera a lot, to appeal to the average american idiot. Bush is a smart man, I don't think we are sending enough troops, but some is better than none I suppose.
-
Ok, anti war bitches, read my typed print- WE CANNOT LOSE CONTROL OF IRAQ. If we do, Iran will jump in there as quickly as possible, egypt and other middle eastern countries will jump in there as well, trying to seize control of the area. What happens next is predicatable, there will be wide spread violence on a scale not seen in a long time, and china russia and the US will be forced to get troops in the to make sure the global oil supply is not disrupted. AKA WW3. If russia or china puts themselves in a position to control world oil, you think theyre playing friendly with us? Fook no, ALL PERSONS on this planet look out for themselves in one way or another, this is true for the US as well. How would you like to live like our ancestors did in the 1800's? Our way of life ends if our supply of oil gets disrupted, and you liberals can thank YOURSELVES for this fucking mess as you all bitch and complain when we try to drill anywhere near this country, thus forcing our dependance internationally. If we could drill in alaska like we'd like to, this wouldn't be happening. But NOOOOOO, there are birds and small mammals out there! Even though we can drill without destroying the place, the small worthless bags of fur might, might NOTICE there is something that doesnt belong there! Well we can't have that, even though most "activists" have never even set foot in these "sanctuaries" so we have to import. I for one think an easier way to get things done is just invade mexico, boot out there idiot drug cartel government, and take over their oil. They have a large portion of the worlds oil, untapped, from what I hear. I'd rather our troops face dirty water, bad burritos, and filthy prositutes than crazed religious nutjubs with bombs on their chests any day. Oh yeah,l the speech was one of the best he's ever given. I think it lends a lot of support to the theory that he is actually very intelligent, and "dumbs down" for the camera a lot, to appeal to the average american idiot. Bush is a smart man, I don't think we are sending enough troops, but some is better than none I suppose.
you think were over there because we can't drill in Alaska? You got to be kidding me...We are over there to control all the oil, including Iran's..We are already letting Iran control Iraq..They are falling for the U.S. governments trap...Some of these guys in our government want Iran to go nuclear(their is not doubt that they already have some nukes on hand-probably small russian type)...And some sick bastards even want them to use one...
Why, so we will have an excuse to wipe them off the map and get total control of all their oil...One way or another the middle east will be controlled by the U.S. If it means that we set off a suitcase nuke and make it look like the iranians did it, you can be sure that this government and any government are capable of just that..
-
you think were over there because we can't drill in Alaska? You got to be kidding me...We are over there to control all the oil, including Iran's..We are already letting Iran control Iraq..They are falling for the U.S. governments trap...Some of these guys in our government want Iran to go nuclear(their is not doubt that they already have some nukes on hand-probably small russian type)...And some sick bastards even want them to use one...
Why, so we will have an excuse to wipe them off the map and get total control of all their oil...One way or another the middle east will be controlled by the U.S. If it means that we set off a suitcase nuke and make it look like the iranians did it, you can be sure that this government and any government are capable of just that..
You must get your info the same place where the rest of the libs on here do!
-
you think were over there because we can't drill in Alaska? You got to be kidding me...We are over there to control all the oil, including Iran's..We are already letting Iran control Iraq..They are falling for the U.S. governments trap...Some of these guys in our government want Iran to go nuclear(their is not doubt that they already have some nukes on hand-probably small russian type)...And some sick bastards even want them to use one...
Why, so we will have an excuse to wipe them off the map and get total control of all their oil...One way or another the middle east will be controlled by the U.S. If it means that we set off a suitcase nuke and make it look like the iranians did it, you can be sure that this government and any government are capable of just that..
So, basically you have no arguement to my statement that if we could drill for oil freely as we wish, and we'rent dependant on any country for it, we wouldn't even be in the middle east.
-
i refuse to believe our troops are dying for profits only. that's too outrageous.
I wish I could believe you were right. But the trend here is to start a war on shady intel, blaze a trail to the capital in two weeks for CNN, then convert to maintenance mode where you just sit there and fight random groups who are only fighting because you're sitting there (note: They didn't die in the original battle).
It happened in afghanistan. It happened in Iraq. Bush said last night we were mobilizing forces to act should he decide (and Tony Snow reinforced it today that if Bush sees a threat, he will order strikes on iran. Kinda hard to ask him for proof after he bombs half the place).
If it happens in iran, will you believe it?
If not, will a 4th war (while the first 3 sit on standby) convince you?
5?
-
So, basically you have no arguement to my statement that if we could drill for oil freely as we wish, and we'rent dependant on any country for it, we wouldn't even be in the middle east.
and just how much oil are they gonna get in alaska? And how long would it last?
-
and just how much oil are they gonna get in alaska? And how long would it last?
LOL...okay, so we're there to take the oil...right?
-
we're in iraq to prevent china and russia from making deals witht he new iraqi govt. we don't want them to sell their oil to anyone they choose. we told al malaki- here, you can run the place, but we will control your only export forever. and he took it. :)
-
and just how much oil are they gonna get in alaska? And how long would it last?
The stores are actually quite large, enough to run the entire country for 25 years if I remember correctly. This IS and ISN"T a war for oil, oil is certainly a part of it but there is also the issue of fighting terrorists (now called insurgents, or laughably "freedom fighters" by insane liberals) and also the issue of feeding the military/industrial complex. I would rather see us fight iranians than russians, wouldn't you?
-
we're in iraq to prevent china and russia from making deals witht he new iraqi govt. we don't want them to sell their oil to anyone they choose. we told al malaki- here, you can run the place, but we will control your only export forever. and he took it. :)
EXACTLY. It's a matter of self preservation, like it or not.
-
EXACTLY. It's a matter of self preservation, like it or not.
yep. problem is, instead of guarding the borders and pipeline, and telling the world we are there for the resource, we prefer to say "we're fighting for democracy'. we're losing men, doing nothing (this is the 5th troop surge now), just to maintain face and keep our true intentions quiet.
-
i refuse to believe our troops are dying for profits only. that's too outrageous.
i don't believe we will invade iran. or occupy as you say
what i do believe is we will begin to fight iran on a smaller scale. we are fighting them now in iraq anyway. we are just going to move the fighting closer to the border of iran.
if we don't, iraq doesn't stand a chance.
this nutbag in iran is probably on his way out, from what i've read about.
I agree. We're not invading Iran.
-
I agree. We're not invading Iran.
It would be far too costly, both financially and im human loss. If you remember, Iran in the past had no problem sending out a human shield of small children to help defeat iraq, can you even IMAGINE what kind of reaction the bleeding heart libs would have in this country?! It would be pandemonium.
-
I agree. We're not invading Iran.
Will we be striking them with missiles?
-
Will we be striking them with missiles?
Perhaps. Certainly not anything I'm losing any sleep over.
-
Perhaps. Certainly not anything I'm losing any sleep over.
of course not.
Go watch the OC.
-
of course not.
Go watch the OC.
Go watch Sesame Street. You might learn something. In between your crackpot conspiracies of course. Priorities.
-
Will we be striking them with missiles?
We're not gonna do shit, Israel will and we will just support them. If Iran launches some devastating WMD's at Israel though, it's MOAB time.
-
I wish I could believe you were right. But the trend here is to start a war on shady intel, blaze a trail to the capital in two weeks for CNN, then convert to maintenance mode where you just sit there and fight random groups who are only fighting because you're sitting there (note: They didn't die in the original battle).
It happened in afghanistan. It happened in Iraq. Bush said last night we were mobilizing forces to act should he decide (and Tony Snow reinforced it today that if Bush sees a threat, he will order strikes on iran. Kinda hard to ask him for proof after he bombs half the place).
If it happens in iran, will you believe it?
If not, will a 4th war (while the first 3 sit on standby) convince you?
5?
we will not invade iran guaranteed.
we went to afganistan because they were harboring al-qada. not a maintenance war. come on.
we went into iraq because saddam was a threat to us and the world and he wouldn't abide by international law.
are we still in germany, japan and korea for "maintenance?"
i'm not saying iran doesn't need to be bi**h slapped, but we won't invade and occupy.
however, if they mess with israel like that dopey leader says he will, israel will take care of iran for us.
-
we will not invade iran guaranteed.
we went to afganistan because they were harboring al-qada. not a maintenance war. come on.
we went into iraq because saddam was a threat to us and the world and he wouldn't abide by international law.
are we still in germany, japan and korea for "maintenance?"
i'm not saying iran doesn't need to be bi**h slapped, but we won't invade and occupy.
however, if they mess with israel like that dopey leader says he will, israel will take care of iran for us.
I agree, but just to clarify, we are still in Germany, Japan, and Korea. I think we'll probably always have a division in Iraq, but it won't be much different than say Korea.
-
Damn good speech. We have no other choice than to try to WIN this war. We can't choose the democrats option of LOSING the war, the damage that would do to this country is catastophic. Democrats in my mind wanting an immediate pullout, stop funding the war, well hell, democrats should be shot for even thinking thats an option.
Not one attack on U.S. soil since this war began. Thank you for being strong and not wavering President Bush. I salute you sir!
What does the the Iraq war have to do with keeping this country safe? How would it do damage to this country? You're a dumbass redneck who still believes Iraq was responsible for 9/11. rofl do you think the hijackers were Iraqi too? With every post you make yourself look worse, so stop posting and go kill yourself.
-
What does the the Iraq war have to do with keeping this country safe?
*SIGH*
-
*SIGH*
They didn't attack us on 9/11? You do know the hijackers were Saudi, right? They are manily concerned with creating a Shia muslim state and don't want the US there. They ARE NO THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY.
There was a report released a while back that said Iraq had nothing to do with the security of this nation.
-
They didn't attack us on 9/11? You do know the hijackers were Saudi, right? They are manily concerned with creating a Shia muslim state and don't want the US there. They ARE NO THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY.
There was a report released a while back that said Iraq had nothing to do with the security of this nation.
In the Presidents first speech after 9/11 he said (I'm paraphrasing) " that we will go after anyone in any country that harbors terrorists or that have ties to terrorism" Saddam had precisly those ties and that effects the safety of our country!
-
In the Presidents first speech after 9/11 he said (I'm paraphrasing) " that we will go after anyone in any country that harbors terrorists or that have ties to terrorism" Saddam had precisly those ties and that effects the safety of our country!
what about Saudi Arabia then?
-
In the Presidents first speech after 9/11 he said (I'm paraphrasing) " that we will go after anyone in any country that harbors terrorists or that have ties to terrorism" Saddam had precisly those ties and that effects the safety of our country!
Pakistan and Saudia Arabia harbor more terrorists than any other country. Saddam did not have any ties to Al-Queda, so stop beating a dead horse already.
-
Pakistan and Saudia Arabia harbor more terrorists than any other country. Saddam did not have any ties to Al-Queda, so stop beating a dead horse already.
there are several dead horses here:
- Iraq was a good decision
- Saddam was a threat
- Iraq had WMD's
- Bush is doing a great job
the list could go on and on
there is a virutal grave yard of dead horses here.
-
In the Presidents first speech after 9/11 he said (I'm paraphrasing) " that we will go after anyone in any country that harbors terrorists or that have ties to terrorism" Saddam had precisly those ties and that effects the safety of our country!
That was a lie.
The taliban was prepared to turn over bin laden and al quida to the haige for a world trial. Or, they would turn him over to the US if the US had any evidence Bin laden was involved.
(See, all the early evidence pointed at Paki intelligence, unfortunately).
Would you expect Bush to turn over a large group of Americans to a foreign nation who claims they did something, with zero evidence? Of course not.
-
That was a lie.
The taliban was prepared to turn over bin laden and al quida to the haige for a world trial. Or, they would turn him over to the US if the US had any evidence Bin laden was involved.
(See, all the early evidence pointed at Paki intelligence, unfortunately).
Would you expect Bush to turn over a large group of Americans to a foreign nation who claims they did something, with zero evidence? Of course not.
So, Saddam wasn't paying families $25k to have there loved ones become human bombs and there wasn't an Al Quaeda training camp just out side of Baghdad?
-
So, Saddam wasn't paying families $25k to have there loved ones become human bombs and there wasn't an Al Quaeda training camp just out side of Baghdad?
Saddam was paying men who blew up israelis. that is israel's problem to deal with. if they wanted to kill him for it, they should have.
the al quida training camp outside baghdad - i believe that one is much disputed. Can you give us details from a source that isn't the Bush adminstration? If it was an actual al Q training camp, i am sure that many countries of the world were aware of it.
(nothing against bush, but he selectively chooses intel to match his goals)
-
So, Saddam wasn't paying families $25k to have there loved ones become human bombs and there wasn't an Al Quaeda training camp just out side of Baghdad?
When backed into a corner you start pulling shit out of your ass to use as arguements, not to mention using arguements that have already proven to be false.
-
When backed into a corner you start pulling shit out of your ass to use as arguements, not to mention using arguements that have already proven to be false.
He's just playing his role. ;)
-
the funniest part was this: "We will use America’s full diplomatic resources to rally support for Iraq from nations throughout the Middle East. Countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States need to understand that an American defeat in Iraq would create a new sanctuary for extremists and a strategic threat to their survival."
15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia (not to mention bin laden himself), mohammad atta was from egypt, the other three were from gulf states, and abu mussab al-zarqawi is from jordan. fucking dumbass, bush.
-
A Paki general, the head of their intel agency, sent Atta $100,000 a few days before 9/11.
That same general had breakfast with future CIA box Porter goss and 911 commissioner graham, ON THE MORNING OF 9/11.
His name and position were deleted from teh 911 commission testimony. "audio malfunctions" on all white house records, but it came up just fine on CSPAN.
There is a need to investigate why this man sent $100,000 to a terrorist about to do a suicide mission. He had his assistant wire the money, so was it a paki intel operation? Why did he have breakfast that morning?
With 3000 dead and all of it a matter of national security, everyone at that breakfast table should have been taking polygraphs the next day. instead, the genreal went back to pakistan and porter goss became head of the CIA.
yeah. big coincidence?
-
When backed into a corner you start pulling shit out of your ass to use as arguements, not to mention using arguements that have already proven to be false.
That was proven...show where it wasn't true, with Libs self denial is a bitch, that prick was breeding them left and right!!
-
So, Saddam wasn't paying families $25k to have there loved ones become human bombs and there wasn't an Al Quaeda training camp just out side of Baghdad?
no, you dope. saddam paid the families of all of the arabs who died in fights with israelis (which means whether or not they blew themselves up) AFTER they died. he did that as an attempt to ingratiate himself with the radical religious muslims who historically considered him an infidel. knowing that the united states was ramping up for a war, he was hoping he could make friends with his neighbors by showing he sided with the muslims in the israeli conflict.
it was an act of desparation by a man who knew his days were numbered. and if you have any actual evidence of the al qaeda training camp outside of baghdad i'd like to see it.
-
That was proven...show where it wasn't true, with Libs self denial is a bitch, that prick was breeding them left and right!!
He was also trying to attack us, but was far from it. I remember he had a huge cannon built into the side of a mountain, the CIA killed the guy making it before it was finished.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol2_nuclear-14.htm
The trippy thing, and noone seems to realize this, is that the gun itself was made to shoot projectiles to new york. That doesnt sound like much, but remember we made a cannon to shoot nuclear tipped shells, therfore the theory that he could launch nukes at us was real.
-
So why would we invade him because he may/may not have paid guys who blew up Israel?
if he was blowing up shit in USA, then let's cook the bastard.
But Sadaam's beef with israel should never influence our decision to send 3000 Americans to their death there.
-
But Sadaam's beef with israel should never influence our decision to send 3000 Americans to their death there.
.........and who is Israel's ally??
-
.........and who is Israel's ally??
i notice you've dodged me in two threads now. why don't you refute what i said?
oh, and to go with 240, you realize that pretty much every country dislikes israel in the region, right? who do you like more, saudi arabia or israel? think carefully now.
-
.........and who is Israel's ally??
Are you saying we should now invade countries because they have beef without our allies?
Are you saying it was a good ideas to pull troops off the hunt for bun laden, and commit them to iraq, because israel didn't want to get into a war?
Their military is very good. We don't have any treaties signed to protect them. We have no duty to let kids die so they don't have to.