• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Everyone wants us out

nogoodname

Banned
Joined
Jul 28, 2006
Messages
526
Reaction score
0
Location
Arizona
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
On the news a report said that 80%of Iraq wants us out and the prime minster wants us out America wants us out yet we stay. I wonder why?
Anyone got any clues on why we should stay in Iraq or why we are still their?

I believe its the oil that we haven't gottin to suck up yet but who knows.:confused:
 
nogoodname said:
On the news a report said that 80%of Iraq wants us out and the prime minster wants us out America wants us out yet we stay. I wonder why?
Anyone got any clues on why we should stay in Iraq or why we are still their?

I believe its the oil that we haven't gottin to suck up yet but who knows.:confused:

It's obvious, isn't it? If we pull out now and Iraq devolves into civil war or a radical Islamic govt, this war will be clearly shown for the total fiasco it has been since the beginning, shown as the worst foreign policy move at least since the bay of pigs if not the war of 1812.

That is a risk the Bush Admin and its apologists will not take. So they will stay in Iraq to protect their mistake and pride, even if it means more Americans and Iraqis die, even if it means hundreds of billions more spent, even if it means Republicans lose control of the Congress and the WH in '08. Because when a Dem gets control and pulls out, then they and the Repubs can blame the aftermath of the mess on the Democrats for "cutting and running."

Same thing with the enormous deficit and debt this Admin has run up. When taxes have to be raised to pay for it, they will blame it all on the Dems.

It's called "passing the buck."
 
Iriemon said:
It's obvious, isn't it? If we pull out now and Iraq devolves into civil war or a radical Islamic govt, this war will be clearly shown for the total fiasco it has been since the beginning, shown as the worst foreign policy move at least since the bay of pigs if not the war of 1812.

That is a risk the Bush Admin and its apologists will not take. So they will stay in Iraq to protect their mistake and pride, even if it means more Americans and Iraqis die, even if it means hundreds of billions more spent, even if it means Republicans lose control of the Congress and the WH in '08. Because when a Dem gets control and pulls out, then they and the Repubs can blame the aftermath of the mess on the Democrats for "cutting and running."

Same thing with the enormous deficit and debt this Admin has run up. When taxes have to be raised to pay for it, they will blame it all on the Dems.

It's called "passing the buck."
thats lame i dont reamber dems "passing the buck" Clintion left everything great for the republicans how lame.
 
nogoodname said:
On the news a report said that 80%of Iraq wants us out and the prime minster wants us out America wants us out yet we stay. I wonder why?
Anyone got any clues on why we should stay in Iraq or why we are still their?

I believe its the oil that we haven't gottin to suck up yet but who knows.:confused:


bullshit...show me the link with the poll.......

The pm knows what will happen with in hours of a pull out..

Show me just how much of this "oil" has made it back here to the US...
 
nogoodname said:
On the news a report said that 80%of Iraq wants us out and the prime minster wants us out America wants us out yet we stay. I wonder why?
Anyone got any clues on why we should stay in Iraq or why we are still their?

I believe its the oil that we haven't gottin to suck up yet but who knows.:confused:

What a shame you think something so ridiculous... 3.50 a gallon and your still think that this was just about oil..... please
 
nogoodname said:
thats lame i dont reamber dems "passing the buck" Clintion left everything great for the republicans how lame.


Your kidding right....... THe place we are in is due to directly to his ineptness. Repeated unanswered terrorist attacks yet no desicive respone. This gave them the oportunity to make the next attck larger
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Your kidding right....... THe place we are in is due to directly to his ineptness. Repeated unanswered terrorist attacks yet no desicive respone. This gave them the oportunity to make the next attck larger

It was Reagan's ineptness in Lebanon that encourged the terrorists, then Bush's ineptness lead to the WTC attack in '93 -- Clinton steadfast attention to the terrorists kept them from further successful attack in the US, but then Bush was elected and took a long vacation despite clear warnings that bin Laden was determined to strike.
 
Iriemon said:
It was Reagan's ineptness in Lebanon that encourged the terrorists, then Bush's ineptness lead to the WTC attack in '93 -- Clinton steadfast attention to the terrorists kept them from further successful attack in the US, but then Bush was elected and took a long vacation despite clear warnings that bin Laden was determined to strike.

The first attack on the TWC, the USS Cole, Beruit, etc etc... ya thats what you call steadfastness. Able dangers warnings concerning this very possiblity. the wall that was constructed by this administration to keep information bottled up and not flowing........ Brilliant I tell you,,, brilliant
 
Calm2Chaos said:
The first attack on the TWC, the USS Cole, Beruit, etc etc... ya thats what you call steadfastness. Able dangers warnings concerning this very possiblity. the wall that was constructed by this administration to keep information bottled up and not flowing........ Brilliant I tell you,,, brilliant

That's what happens when there was a history of abuse. Anyways the intel was working fine, they had intel that bin Laden was preparing to strike and hijack planes in Aug 01 it was just intellegence at the very top that was lacking.
 
Iriemon said:
That's what happens when there was a history of abuse. Anyways the intel was working fine, they had intel that bin Laden was preparing to strike and hijack planes in Aug 01 it was just intellegence at the very top that was lacking.

Able Danger had the information... The administration refused to hear it and or take it seriously...
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Able Danger had the information... The administration refused to hear it and or take it seriously...

Bush had the information ... and went on vacation...
 
Iriemon said:
Bush had the information ... and went on vacation...

Able Danger was a clinton debackle along with the rest that I mentioned and a few more... It was there he did nothing, you called it steadfastness. Attacking a millitary ship and killing soldiers.... nothing.. beruit ... nothing..
Six Americans were killed in the first attack on the World Trade Center but Clinton called it a crime, not an Islamic terrorist attack..... Nothing

1993 — The FBI identified three "charities" connected to the terrorist organization Hamas. Clinton ignored FBI pleas that he create a "President's List" of extremist and terrorist groups. Clinton feared the political fallout of "profiling" Islamic charities. Money continued to flow freely for the next seven years from America to Islamic terrorists all over the world including al Qaeda....

Nothing

1995 — Al Qaeda began planning the 9/11 attack dubbed "Operation Bojinka." (operation big bang) The first attack on the WTC had failed and bin Laden wanted a second shot at the towers. Plans for this attack were found on the computer of Ramzi Yousef when he was captured. Yousef carried an Iraqi passport and is now in prison for life for his involvement in the first attack on the World Trade Center.....

Nothing

1996 — The explosion of TWA Flight 800 killed 230 people. Clinton quickly issued Executive Order 13039 to keep all involved in recovery process silent. The FBI told the hundreds of witnesses, many of them former military, that what they saw was not surface to air missile, but a single "firework" display. After spending 40 million dollars, Chairman Jim Hall of the National Transportation Safety Board sat before Congress and stated that there was no physical evidence or conclusive forensic evidence to prove it was a mechanical failure that caused the explosion of the center fuel tank on TWA 800. Senator John Kerry is on record twice referring to the TWA 800 disaster a terrorist attack. Pilots called the "mechanical failure" explanation ridiculous....

nothing

1996 — The CIA and FBI both warned Clinton they had uncovered a plan involving al Qaeda called the "Martyrdom Battalion" which indicated terrorists were planning to hijack planes and use them as missiles....

Nothing

1996 — The Philippine authorities warned the FBI they had received credible information that al Qaeda was planning on hijacking planes and flying them into Federal Buildings....

Nothing

1997 — Madeleine Albright became Secretary of State. Ms. Albright, in defense of Clinton offered up perhaps the single most absurd excuse ever given for the Clinton failures: "This is hard to say and I haven't found a way to say it that doesn't sound crass, but it is the truth that those {attacks before Sept. 11} were happening overseas and while there were Americans who died, there were not thousands and it did not happen on U. S. soil."...

1998 — bin Laden issued one of two fatwas urging his followers to target the United States and all Americans.

Nothing

1999 — Clinton's own secretary of defense, William Cohen, in a July 1999 op-ed piece in the Washington Post, predicted a terrorist attack on America's mainland.

Nothing

1999 — "Project Megiddo" went public on the FBI website. It was a directive given in 1995 to the FBI from Bill Clinton to direct their investigative efforts towards only domestic terrorism such as the Christian right and militias. No effort was to be made to link any American group with Islamic terrorists.

Nothing

1999 — The Transportation Security Administration altered a terrorist report to exclude all references to foreign terrorists. David Holmes, head of the Commerce Department zeroed in on white militia groups in a 1999 threat analysis. Commerce officials who worked on the case say Holmes' exclusion of every threat group that wasn't white was in keeping with what they say was the Clinton administration policy of focusing on domestic threats from white militia groups, rather than Islamic groups, in combating terrorism. "Holmes made us take out every group that wasn't white, no minority groups allowed. He was toeing the liberal line of the Clinton administration."

2000 — The Pentagon's intelligence group "Able Danger" tried to pass on information about a terror cell in NYC that included four future highjackers of 9/11 to the FBI on three occasions but was refused each time.

NOTHINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

2001 — Because of the "walls" thrown up by the Clinton administration and Clinton's refusal to face the Islamic enemy stalking America, "Operation Bojinka" — the 9/11 attack — went on without any interference from American intelligence agencies that were blinded by Clinton's fear of the messy business that is Islamic terrorism.
 
nogoodname said:
thats lame i dont reamber dems "passing the buck" Clintion left everything great for the republicans how lame.

No, Clinton had the luck to be president during the technology bubble. It was already collapsing before he left office. What he left was an economy already starting to fall, not a great economy.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Able Danger was a clinton debackle along with the rest that I mentioned and a few more... It was there he did nothing, you called it steadfastness. Attacking a millitary ship and killing soldiers.... nothing.. beruit ... nothing..

...

The hindsight blame game is fun, isn't it? I can play too!

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essaytheytriedtow arnus

In late July 2001, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a “huge attack” on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, “possibly from the intelligence services.” Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings. [Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02]

An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was “very disappointed” that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning “large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001.” He provided this information to the US in August 2001. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02]

Hasni Mubarak, President of Egypt, maintains that in the beginning of September 2001 Egyptian intelligence warned American officials that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. [ABC News, 6/4/02]

In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways,”“possibly as flying bombs.” [Sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in “the final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bush’s briefing on August 6, 2001. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]


Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.”

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/whitewash_report_52_pre-911_wa rnings.htm

The report by the 9/11 commission that investigated the suicide airliner attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon detailed 52 such warnings given to FAA leaders from April to Sept. 10, 2001, about the radical Islamic terrorist group and its leader, Osama bin Laden.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s01-coop.html

ATHENS – The Bush administration may hesitate to give Arab allies public credit, but Washington investigators should consider warnings that at least two friendly Arab intelligence services sent to Washington just weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Jordan, beyond a doubt, and Morocco, with some certainty, advised US and allied intelligence that Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorists were preparing airborne terrorist operations in the continental United States.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/

Aug 6 Presidential daily briefing memo

Bin Laden determined to strike U.S.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Osama bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. bin Laden implied in US television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Centre bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America."

After US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington according to a XXXXXX service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told an XXXXXX service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the US to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the US. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that Bin Ladin lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own US attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. bin Laden associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

Al-Qaeda members - including some who are US citizens - have resided in or travelled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. Two al-Qaeda members found guilty in the conspiracy to bomb our Embassies in East Africa were US citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1900s.

A clandestine source said in 1998 that a bin Laden cell in New York was recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a XXXXXX service in 1998 saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."


My! What to do about this? Notify airport security to be on alert? Nah ... I know, let's take a month's vacation and go to the ranch in Texas and mend some fences! Yeah!
 
nogoodname said:
I believe its the oil that we haven't gottin to suck up yet but who knows.:confused:

The exact same thing was said about Kuwait. "It's all about the oil"

It's true that you cannot totally discount the effects of oil on virtually anything to do with the Middle East, but that doesn't automatically mean that anything that we do (or anyone else does) is solely about oil.

Again, we are in a no-win situation. If we don't do anything, we are called mean and self-centered for not helping those who need help. If we do do something, then we are imperialist warmongers.
 
MrFungus420 said:
No, Clinton had the luck to be president during the technology bubble. It was already collapsing before he left office. What he left was an economy already starting to fall, not a great economy.

So what was the PC industry boom in the 80s? That wasn't a "technology bubble?" Gee, Reagan sure was lucky to be president during that. How about the real estate market bubble in the 00s? Boy, Bush sure was lucky to be president during that!

There are always "bubbles". So what?

Even if you included the '01 "recession" (when real GDP went up 1%) the economy kicked *** under Clinton in all categories. And it was done without hocking the country to its armpits in debt.
 
Iriemon said:
The hindsight blame game is fun, isn't it? I can play too!

!


But I am not playing the hindsight game you are.. The clinton subject was brought up and how great he left things. You said he was steadfast in his fight against terrorism. I just proved you completely wrong and showed how little he actually did and the steps he took to insulate his administration from having to deal with it. There was no hindsight whatsoever. I was answering specific allegations about a president from the past so I would have to get my information from the past....


Thank You
 
Calm2Chaos said:
But I am not playing the hindsight game you are.. The clinton subject was brought up and how great he left things. You said he was steadfast in his fight against terrorism. I just proved you completely wrong and showed how little he actually did and the steps he took to insulate his administration from having to deal with it. There was no hindsight whatsoever. I was answering specific allegations about a president from the past so I would have to get my information from the past....

Thank You

No you are playing the hindsight game, you just proved that Clinton took steps to prevent a growing threat from hitting us on our shores, and that when Bush took office despite a known danger and multiple warnings went on vacation -- asleep at the wheel for 9 months. I was answering your allegations to show how completely wrong you are as usual.

Thank you.
 
Iriemon said:
No you are playing the hindsight game, you just proved that Clinton took steps to prevent a growing threat from hitting us on our shores, and that when Bush took office despite a known danger and multiple warnings went on vacation -- asleep at the wheel for 9 months. I was answering your allegations to show how completely wrong you are as usual.

Thank you.


You keep telling yourself I said or did anythingof the sort. Your hero did nothing under direct attack from these people. He allowed our soldiers to be killed without so much as a question. He allowed our civilians to be killed without so much as a blip..... I proved that clinton despite massive warnings allowed various attacks on US interests and US soil and US military personal.... And all the while did nothing except think of ways to keep his nae and administration form having to get involved..... His steps were to hide his head in the sand after each attack...

Your pathetic and ignorant attempt at turning this around is typical and per usual... pathetic. you play the hindsight game I will play the fact game.. And the truth is if Clinton did NAYTHING at all about terrorism 9/11 might not have happened. If these animals weren't given a free reign to attack with no retaliation they might have thought a little bit before actually trying again. But if the president is willing to allow it to happen then why stop. He invited this to happen, he just kept hidden long enough so that ANOTHER attack wouldn't be credidted to hiis watch
 
Calm2Chaos said:
You keep telling yourself I said or did anythingof the sort. Your hero did nothing under direct attack from these people. He allowed our soldiers to be killed without so much as a question. He allowed our civilians to be killed without so much as a blip..... I proved that clinton despite massive warnings allowed various attacks on US interests and US soil and US military personal.... And all the while did nothing except think of ways to keep his nae and administration form having to get involved..... His steps were to hide his head in the sand after each attack...

Your pathetic and ignorant attempt at turning this around is typical and per usual... pathetic. you play the hindsight game I will play the fact game.. And the truth is if Clinton did NAYTHING at all about terrorism 9/11 might not have happened. If these animals weren't given a free reign to attack with no retaliation they might have thought a little bit before actually trying again. But if the president is willing to allow it to happen then why stop. He invited this to happen, he just kept hidden long enough so that ANOTHER attack wouldn't be credidted to hiis watch

Oh -- not lets engage in hyperbole:

You keep telling yourself I said that. Your hero did nothing except go on vacation when there was a known threat with multiple warnings. He allowed 3000 people to be killed without so much as putting airport security on alert. He allowed our civilians to be killed without so much as a blip because it would have interfered with his vacatoin ..... I proved that Bush despite massive warnings Bush went on vacation and allowed attacks on US interests and US soil and US military personal.... And all the while did nothing except think of ways he could take more vacation than any other president in history ..... His steps were to hide his head in the sand in the face of a known threat ...

Your pathetic and ignorant attempt at turning this around is typical and per usual... pathetic. You play the hindsight game I will play the fact game.. And the truth is if Bush did ANYTHING at all about terrorism 9/11 might not have happened. If these animals weren't given a free reign to attack they might not have succeeded. But if the president is takes a vacation instead of doing his job then its pretty easy. He invited this to happen, and then tried to hide evidence of his neglect and invaded Iraq on made up reasons to divert attention to his failure to do his job.
 
Iriemon said:
Oh -- not lets engage in hyperbole:

You keep telling yourself I said that. Your hero did nothing except go on vacation when there was a known threat with multiple warnings. He allowed 3000 people to be killed without so much as putting airport security on alert. He allowed our civilians to be killed without so much as a blip because it would have interfered with his vacatoin ..... I proved that Bush despite massive warnings Bush went on vacation and allowed attacks on US interests and US soil and US military personal.... And all the while did nothing except think of ways he could take more vacation than any other president in history ..... His steps were to hide his head in the sand in the face of a known threat ...

Your pathetic and ignorant attempt at turning this around is typical and per usual... pathetic. You play the hindsight game I will play the fact game.. And the truth is if Bush did ANYTHING at all about terrorism 9/11 might not have happened. If these animals weren't given a free reign to attack they might not have succeeded. But if the president is takes a vacation instead of doing his job then its pretty easy. He invited this to happen, and then tried to hide evidence of his neglect and invaded Iraq on made up reasons to divert attention to his failure to do his job.

You keep telling yourself that.. Yet attack after attack your man did absolutely NOTHINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG... cal it what you want but thats the truth.. A direct act of war involving the USS Cole and NOTHINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG was done. Beruit.. NOTHINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG... These are after the fact situations when something occured and NOTHINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG was done. Repeatedly he allowed this country to be used as a punching bag and did notihng. Argue it all you want but your wrong if you do and you know you are.. These are the facts, and they can not be changed. And let's remeber .. I didn't bring Clinton into this debate so I was not looking at antything hindsight. I was responding to an obvious misstatement concerning his effectiveness.
 
Calm2Chaos said:
Your kidding right....... THe place we are in is due to directly to his ineptness. Repeated unanswered terrorist attacks yet no desicive respone. This gave them the oportunity to make the next attck larger

Tell me again what the war in Iraq has to do with Osama bin Laden?
 
nogoodname said:
On the news a report said that 80%of Iraq wants us out and the prime minster wants us out America wants us out yet we stay. I wonder why?
Anyone got any clues on why we should stay in Iraq or why we are still their?

I believe its the oil that we haven't gottin to suck up yet but who knows.:confused:

Aps,

1. Please cite your source/provide a link....otherwise you are just regurgitating Liberal left propoganda!

2. please don't tell me the source is some kind of POLL?! :roll: (Why is it that the onlypeople who try to govern bypolls are liberal Left Loonies?!)

3. The prime Minister for iraq does want us out...just as soon as they can stand on their own 2 feet, a flexible timeline fow which is already in progress. IDF (Iraqi Defense Forces) are already taking over control and military ops in certain parts of the country - that is as of TODAY's military/political briefing, not rumor and propoganda!

Yeah, 'EVERYONE' wants us out, if by 'Everyone' you mean:
...The Democrats
...The former Al Zarqawi
...Al Qaeda
...The Iranian Insurgents
...The leaders in Iran
...Holdout/left-over Hussein Loyalists

In fact, the Democrats are staking their whole futures/future elections on us pulling out too soon and the goverment of Iraq falling into Iranian hands, becoming a puppet goverment like Lebanon, so they can say 'All the deaths and fighting was for nothing'....'We told you all along that America couldn't win'!
 
easyt65 said:
Aps,

1. Please cite your source/provide a link....otherwise you are just regurgitating Liberal left propoganda!

2. please don't tell me the source is some kind of POLL?! :roll: (Why is it that the onlypeople who try to govern bypolls are liberal Left Loonies?!)

3. The prime Minister for iraq does want us out...just as soon as they can stand on their own 2 feet, a flexible timeline fow which is already in progress. IDF (Iraqi Defense Forces) are already taking over control and military ops in certain parts of the country - that is as of TODAY's military/political briefing, not rumor and propoganda!

Yeah, 'EVERYONE' wants us out, if by 'Everyone' you mean:
...The Democrats
...The former Al Zarqawi
...Al Qaeda
...The Iranian Insurgents
...The leaders in Iran
...Holdout/left-over Hussein Loyalists

In fact, the Democrats are staking their whole futures/future elections on us pulling out too soon and the goverment of Iraq falling into Iranian hands, becoming a puppet goverment like Lebanon, so they can say 'All the deaths and fighting was for nothing'....'We told you all along that America couldn't win'!

Excuse me, easy? Please look at your post above and who you are quoting, because it ain't me. Buh-bye.
 
aps said:
Tell me again what the war in Iraq has to do with Osama bin Laden?

I don't have to.. I am not trying to draw a corrilation between Iraq and AlQueda or OBL. A war was started whether you agree with were we are or the reasons. The build up of the decisions was another attack on US soil. My belief is that this could have been avoided possibly if Clinton stood up and defended this country just once from attacks. Instead of emboldening these animals, and making them think we wouldn't respond.
 
Back
Top Bottom