A question for the anti-war crowd.

[The Real McCoy]

they're only there because we came. they're not the ones that'll atack us on our homeland, they just want us out of theirs.

No, there were plenty there before we came.

 

[LeftyHenry]

No, there were plenty there before we came.

Prove it. Link please.

There weren't because the only ones there now want us out.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Prove it. Link please.

There weren't because the only ones there now want us out.

prove they werent there!!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Proud American:
prove they werent there!!

You are so full of hatred and intolerance that you can't make a single statement that doesn't come from pure emotion and completely void of facts.

 

[LeftyHenry]

prove they werent there!!

There are three insurgent groups in Iraq. The Sunnis. The Saddamists. And the AL queda. The Sunnis main reason more being insurgents is because they are a minority and know that they'll never acheive political success because of their religious views. They weren't there before, or were underground, and posed no threat to us because Saddam would kill everyone of them if they did anything. The Saddamists weren't there because saddam was in power. And The Al Queda's weren't ther because Iraq was the way they wanted it. The only group that poses any threat to our homeland are the Al Queda group who weren't ther before. Contrary to popular right wing belief, not all Arabs are terrorists.

 

[ProudAmerican]

There are three insurgent groups in Iraq. The Sunnis. The Saddamists. And the AL queda. The Sunnis main reason more being insurgents is because they are a minority and know that they'll never acheive political success because of their religious views. They weren't there before, or were underground, and posed no threat to us because Saddam would kill everyone of them if they did anything. The Saddamists weren't there because saddam was in power. And The Al Queda's weren't ther because Iraq was the way they wanted it. The only group that poses any threat to our homeland are the Al Queda group who weren't ther before. Contrary to popular right wing belief, not all Arabs are terrorists.

my point was simple.

you cant prove anymore that al queda wasnt in Iraq than I can prove they were.

and the ridiculous "hate monger" card that the left always plays is a joke.

I hate terrorists. period. its not my fault that the vast majority of them happen to be arab.

 

[LeftyHenry]

my point was simple.

you cant prove anymore that al queda wasnt in Iraq than I can prove they were.

and the ridiculous "hate monger" card that the left always plays is a joke.

I hate terrorists. period. its not my fault that the vast majority of them happen to be arab.

so I'm not getting that link or at least some logic supporting your claim besides for "I hate terrorists and love Bush which is why they're there" and
" Iraq is an arabic-speaking country so of course they're ther"?

 

[ProudAmerican]

so I'm not getting that link or at least some logic supporting your claim besides for "I hate terrorists and love Bush which is why they're there" and
" Iraq is an arabic-speaking country so of course they're ther"?

you simply got what you gave.

You cant prove there were no terrorists in Iraq anymore than I can prove there were.

simply admit that and move on.

and I do hate terrorists.......and I find fault in many of Bushes decisions....so there goes that idea!!!

His efforts in the war on terror have been the right decisions though....IMO.

 

[cnredd]

There are three insurgent groups in Iraq. The Sunnis. The Saddamists. And the AL queda. The Sunnis main reason more being insurgents is because they are a minority and know that they'll never acheive political success because of their religious views. They weren't there before, or were underground, and posed no threat to us because Saddam would kill everyone of them if they did anything. The Saddamists weren't there because saddam was in power. And The Al Queda's weren't ther because Iraq was the way they wanted it. The only group that poses any threat to our homeland are the Al Queda group who weren't ther before. Contrary to popular right wing belief, not all Arabs are terrorists.

Wanna try again?...You're 1 for 3...

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Proud American:
I find fault in many of Bushes decisions

Name them.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Wanna try again?...You're 1 for 3...

I didn't know this was a game show cnredd when soldiers are being killed for something no one can prove.

 

[cnredd]

I didn't know this was a game show cnredd when soldiers are being killed for something no one can prove.

Nope...

I was referring to the three types of insurgents you mentioned the Coalition is dealing with...you were wrong on your explanations on two of them...

As Gunny would say..."crack a book"...:2wave:

 

[oldreliable67]

Name them.

This wasn't addressed to me, but maybe I'll answer it anyway. It seems that on these Iraq-related threads, I'm mostly defending Bush's ME policies. Maybe it would provide some balance to how my posts are received if I provide a little info on those Bush policies with which I disagree.

One of the chief areas with which I detest Bush policies is spending. Bush, thus far, hasn't even hinted at a veto of any of the outrageous spending bills cooked up by the majority party, even those packed full of pork. Even Peggy Noonan, erstwhile GOP speechwriter and cheerleader said about Bush's fiscal policy, "When asked about pork, he just asks, "Got any BBQ sauce?" ". I'm hoping that the current attention being given by the media to the 'earmarks' process will get this topic more visibility.

Another area is his management of his staff. Here, he should have the help of Karl Rove, but if anything, Rove is just making things worse. Bush's staff should keep him up to date and informed on issues, especially those issues that are breaking into the public conciousness. They ain't doing it. Bush is having to spend too much time playing catch up on breaking issues (like the ports controversy).

The quality of Bush's appointments have been generally too short on qualifications and too long on political patronage. FEMA's 'Brownie' probably the best, or at least the most (in)famous example. Just awful.

There are others, but thats enough off-topic stuff for now. Just know that while I generally agree with Bush's ME policies, I am far from a Bush cheerleader.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Prove it. Link please.

There weren't because the only ones there now want us out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-islam

Only one of many...

Your lack of knowledge about Iraq discredits your arguments against the war.

 

[LeftyHenry]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-islam

Only one of many...

Your lack of knowledge about Iraq discredits your arguments against the war.

show me the many you speak of. The crips and the bloods sound worse than these guys. And what the hell did they have to do with 9/11. There are small tiny terrorist groups all over the world like these guys. Even here.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Nope...

I was referring to the three types of insurgents you mentioned the Coalition is dealing with...you were wrong on your explanations on two of them...

As Gunny would say..."crack a book"...:2wave:

nope. I'm right. Bush said so himself in a recent speech.

 

[Willoughby]

i think the major problem with combating terrorism is the old shutting teh stable door after the horse has bolted

 

[fourddream]

i think the major problem with combating terrorism is the old shutting teh stable door after the horse has bolted

If you want to find the terrorists you follow the money trail to see who's paying them and just like in protection rackets the one doing the terrorising is on the payroll of the ones offering the protection. Don't believe they (the U.S. government) would do that?
Well in the 70's they were capable of enormous deceipt and manipulation and these days well they've got so much power they don't give a damn at all.
Don't believe me? well their plans to manipulare history to their private wills is now declassified, read if you dare.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf :spin:

 

[The Real McCoy]

If you want to find the terrorists you follow the money trail to see who's paying them and just like in protection rackets the one doing the terrorising is on the payroll of the ones offering the protection. Don't believe they (the U.S. government) would do that?
Well in the 70's they were capable of enormous deceipt and manipulation and these days well they've got so much power they don't give a damn at all.
Don't believe me? well their plans to manipulare history to their private wills is now declassified, read if you dare.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf :spin:

Do I need a real tin-foil hat to discover the truth? My aluminum foil one just isn't cutting it.

Perhaps I should fashion it into a Sombrero...

 

[fourddream]

Do I need a real tin-foil hat to discover the truth? My aluminum foil one just isn't cutting it.

Perhaps I should fashion it into a Sombrero...

Obviously isn't maybe you could try, or one with bells on maybe. I'm not into hats meself.

The real, real McCoy. :2wave:
www.frappr.com/fourddream

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
This wasn't addressed to me, but maybe I'll answer it anyway. It seems that on these Iraq-related threads, I'm mostly defending Bush's ME policies. Maybe it would provide some balance to how my posts are received if I provide a little info on those Bush policies with which I disagree.

One of the chief areas with which I detest Bush policies is spending. Bush, thus far, hasn't even hinted at a veto of any of the outrageous spending bills cooked up by the majority party, even those packed full of pork. Even Peggy Noonan, erstwhile GOP speechwriter and cheerleader said about Bush's fiscal policy, "When asked about pork, he just asks, "Got any BBQ sauce?" ". I'm hoping that the current attention being given by the media to the 'earmarks' process will get this topic more visibility.

Another area is his management of his staff. Here, he should have the help of Karl Rove, but if anything, Rove is just making things worse. Bush's staff should keep him up to date and informed on issues, especially those issues that are breaking into the public conciousness. They ain't doing it. Bush is having to spend too much time playing catch up on breaking issues (like the ports controversy).

The quality of Bush's appointments have been generally too short on qualifications and too long on political patronage. FEMA's 'Brownie' probably the best, or at least the most (in)famous example. Just awful.

There are others, but thats enough off-topic stuff for now. Just know that while I generally agree with Bush's ME policies, I am far from a Bush cheerleader.

It is a true joy to see someone who actually thinks for themselves instead of automatically cheerleading the dogma of their party.

 

[Cookie Parker]

What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?

How about fight terrorists?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-islam

Only one of many...

Your lack of knowledge about Iraq discredits your arguments against the war.

Can you give a better example? Because you mentioned a terrorist organisation located on the boarder and also protected by Iraq's archenemy. It doesn't even seem it was in connection to Saddam terroritory. Because from the article it seems like it was between Iran and PUK controled territory.

 

[ProudAmerican]

What do you people who oppose the war in Iraq propose we do to combat the problem of terrorism?

How about fight terrorists?

unfortunately, far too many people only want to fight terrorists AFTER they have murdered thousands of innocent civilians.

 

[Cookie Parker]

unfortunately, far too many people only want to fight terrorists AFTER they have murdered thousands of innocent civilians.

Proud American. Please provide me proof that Saddam Hussein harbored the terrorists who attacked us.

Thank you.