Boo Radley
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2009
- Messages
- 37,066
- Reaction score
- 7,028
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Yep, to be clear, we are not in agreement on that, either
Obama a loser who vvoted against everything that got us ( not Obama) Osama..
God Bless Palin..
Obama would only waterboard his politcal enemies in the USA... like he has done using the IRS
These same people who are against waterboarding foreigners in order to protect American lives appear to be the same ones who will happily turn troops and SWAT teams on their own fellow Americans.
That's a fact, so agreement is not required. In the UN speech, as a rationale for the invasion, it is fact that false testimony was used. It's a fact.
For those claiming that torture doesn't work, I have a question--If you knew something that I wanted to know, are you saying I couldn't torture it out of you?
Really? Something tells me if you were locked away in some Iraqi torture chamber you would tell them whatever they wanted to know. I know I would. But maybe Im just a wuss lolDepends on what it was. You would never get any usable codes from me for access to any of my computer security systems that I want locked down. Information can be made unusable even if it is factually true. Torture would only work for certain types of information and in certain circumstances. Specific information is probably the worst kind of information to be extracted by torture due to the fact that it can be shaded and the shading may actually be the important part of the information.
Really? Something tells me if you were locked away in some Iraqi torture chamber you would tell them whatever they wanted to know. I know I would. But maybe Im just a wuss lol
For those claiming that torture doesn't work, I have a question--If you knew something that I wanted to know, are you saying I couldn't torture it out of you?
That's a fact, so agreement is not required. In the UN speech, as a rationale for the invasion, it is fact that false testimony was used. It's a fact.
You do realize in the 60's and early 70's the NRA supported gun control right? It wasnt until the mid 70's that the party was divided and they began lobbying efforts.you really don't know much of what you talk about.
The Dems politicized the NRA by using Gun control as a shield against the valid charges that Dems-especially Dem judges were soft on street criminals
Uhhh socialism is an economic system. What does gun ownership have to do with economics?you want to whine about the NRA because most of us in that group think socialism is a disease that ought to be flushed down the toilet.
You go realize that I owe a gun.whining about guns is just a facade for what really upsets the loony left
Kind of like letting Jeffrey Dahmer go because you think one person didn't tell the truth about him. Doesn't change the crimes he committed.
Really doesn't matter, since it is irrelevant and there were other reasons to remove Hussain. Saddam, not Barack. There are plenty of reasons to remove him too.
Yes, it matters. None of those reason prompted any invasion prior. The lynch pin, the difference, was the "growing and gathering" lie. It was the "slam dunk" that would convince the public.
Of course, 9/11 changed our stance. We could no longer sit back and wait for an attack. We could not let Saddam continue in power. We were right to act and protect ourselves. Not like we didn't warn him, or give him over a year to comply. He could have left power as one of the richest men in the world. He never thought we would follow through and remove him. Well, we did. And the world is a better place without him.
Attacking Iraq did nothing to prevent another attack. And invading Iraq was in no way protecting ourselves. He had no choice put to put us off, as he feared Iran as much as us. You'd do better to ask why Iran helped us go in. You might also review our helper Chalibi and his connections to Iran (not to mention why the CIA didn't trust him and his heroes in Error).
I am just so glad that that dirt ball and his sub human garbage of a family are gone for good. If we hadn't gone in, bye now a nuke would have gone off in Israel, NYC, or Washington.
Of course, 9/11 changed our stance. We could no longer sit back and wait for an attack. We could not let Saddam continue in power. We were right to act and protect ourselves. Not like we didn't warn him, or give him over a year to comply. He could have left power as one of the richest men in the world. He never thought we would follow through and remove him. Well, we did. And the world is a better place without him.
I am just so glad that that dirt ball and his sub human garbage of a family are gone for good. If we hadn't gone in, bye now a nuke would have gone off in Israel, NYC, or Washington.
I think you need to brush up on your history and on your current events. Iraq did not have nuclear capability, was not working on nuclear capability and did not have a delivery system capable of delivering a warhead much past Israel. Moreover, Iraq had ZERO to do with 9/11. The Bush Administration , to sell (hood-wink) the American people on attacking Iraq consistently used Iraq and Al Qaeda (or 9/11) in the same paragraph. The fact you did something similar suggests they sealed the deal with you.
The United States government perpetrated a unilateral, pre-meditated attack on a sovereign country that had committed no greater contemporary crime then effectively mouthing off and not being in compliance with their truce. Otherwise, Hussein was nothing more than a two-bit dictator or a second world country. The US government spent between $2 and $6T to wage this war and occupation (and the occupation of Afghanistan) all to get rid of this political peon.
Oh, the silliness of the left! Like I've said before, you guys would be funny if you weren't so dangerous and destructive. I never said Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, did I? Quiet down, I'm educating you!
It would be dumb to wait around for them to actually get nukes, right? They were pretty close back in the 80's. But hey, he was just a two bit dictator, he would never want nuclear weapons. We could rely on that, right? And he'd never supply them to anyone that would set them off here or in Israel, right? That's a gamble worth taking with millions of lives, as long as we are nice to them.
See what I mean about the left being dangerous? Of course you don't, but we still have to try and maintain our safety.
Torture is immoral and diminishes America's standing in the world. I hope the christians on this board will take offense to water boarding being compared to baptism.
Actually I stand by her. She got more balls than Obama.
Prove it. Obama is a total failure at every turn in his administration. But feel free to bring up a man that has been out of office for 6 years all you want.And obama has more balls than bush so I guess she has more balls than bush as well.
I am just so glad that that dirt ball and his sub human garbage of a family are gone for good. If we hadn't gone in, bye now a nuke would have gone off in Israel, NYC, or Washington.
I did not say that you said Iraq had something to do with 9/11. I merely accused you of the standard Republican manipulation of mentioned Iraq in the context of 9/11 (using them in the same sentence or same paragraph), which you did do.
Again, there was no evidence that Saadam was a clear and present threat to the US. But, since you were happy that we spent $40,000 of your personal money getting rid of him... well, I am glad you see value in that. I, on the hand, want my $40,000 back. It could have been better spent on just about anything else.
The fact that you honestly still think Saddam was a threat is hilarious.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?