Thinker

[Steve 1]

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6664

[Old Texan]

http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=6664
An untold story because it's positive. The left and Bush haters club couldn't stand it if something good came out of this war.
The real "thinkers" will be here shortly to tear down the truth. You know the "social sympathizers" known as the "3 ***boat Libs", our proud 21st century Stooge replacement team. :rolleyes:

[eliminatedsprinter]

I speak to recently returned Iraqi Freedom Vets all the time. They all say pretty much the same things as that above report. They don't even say that we have been "rebuilding" Iraq. They say we have been "building" Iraq. Furthermore, they say that most of the country is peaceful and stable and the people there are very appreciative of them being there and their efforts. But hey, I guess the people on the left will just think I'm gullible for taking the word of our men and women who have actually been there. :rolleyes:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

An untold story because it's positive. The left and Bush haters club couldn't stand it if something good came out of this war.
The real "thinkers" will be here shortly to tear down the truth. You know the "social sympathizers" known as the "3 ***boat Libs", our proud 21st century Stooge replacement team. :rolleyes:
You mean "See-No-Evil, Hear-No-Evil, and Type-No-Evil" :crossx:

[SmokinLowriderSS]

I speak to recently returned Iraqi Freedom Vets all the time. They all say pretty much the same things as that above report. They don't even say that we have been "rebuilding" Iraq. They say we have been "building" Iraq. Furthermore, they say that most of the country is peaceful and stable and the people there are very appreciative of them being there and their efforts. But hey, I guess the people on the left will just think I'm gullible for taking the word of our men and women who have actually been there. :rolleyes:
Yes, you cannot listen to the stupid pawns of the government. They only joined the millitary because they didn't pay enough attention in skool, and thus had no other future. :rolleyes:

[Old Texan]

Yes, you cannot listen to the stupid pawns of the government. They only joined the millitary because they didn't pay enough attention in skool, and thus had no other future. :rolleyes:
Yeah, I hear a lot of them are PO'd they don't have swiftboats on the Tigris. That's what real men do to get ahead in military life, then go on to marry into a ketchup empire after ratting out your fellow soldiers (sailors), they know where the real fulfillment lies. :cry:

[Knotbad]

After four years, Baghdad has power for maybe four hours a day?? We did better than that in Japan. Oh wait...we DEFEATED Japan(under two Democratic administrations no less).

[QuickJet]

After four years, Baghdad has power for maybe four hours a day?? We did better than that in Japan. Oh wait...we DEFEATED Japan(under two Democratic administrations no less).
Are you suggesting we use Atomic power to defeat this enemy? If so, I'm all for it.
You are aware that more people die in Washington D.C. on a daily basis than all of Iraq? You do know that don't you?

[eliminatedsprinter]

Are you suggesting we use Atomic power to defeat this enemy? If so, I'm all for it.
You are aware that more people die in Washington D.C. on a daily basis than all of Iraq? You do know that don't you?
As many Americians die in D.C. per day than in Iraq. But your point is still valid. The death toll in the U.S. from gang violence in the U.S. is comparable to Iraq. Here in the U.S. we have gangs (factions) killing people over drugs and "territory" are we in a "Civil War"???The returning veterans I speak with, say that most of the violence in Iraq is in specific parts of the country and done by people that are regarded by the majority of people as criminal thugs.

[Knotbad]

Are you suggesting we use Atomic power to defeat this enemy? If so, I'm all for it.
You are aware that more people die in Washington D.C. on a daily basis than all of Iraq? You do know that don't you?
1. No
2. What does that have to do with the fact that we invaded a sovereign nation?? Do you want to invade Washington, DC?? :D

[Old Texan]

2. What does that have to do with the fact that we invaded a sovereign nation?? Do you want to invade Washington, DC?? :D
Do you support Saddam Hussein and think Iraq was better under his dictatorial rule?
Throwin' out some big words like "sovereign nation" doesn't make it the lost utopia you keep indicating prior to the war. A war supportted by "your" side of the aisle.

[eliminatedsprinter]

2. Do you want to invade Washington, DC?? :D
We did. Armed federal authorities had to go in and physically remove Mayor Marion Barry and his corrupt staff back around 1991. :rollside:

[Knotbad]

Do you support Saddam Hussein and think Iraq was better under his dictatorial rule?
Throwin' out some big words like "sovereign nation" doesn't make it the lost utopia you keep indicating prior to the war. A war supportted by "your" side of the aisle.
1. Yes I do think Iraq was better off under Hussein. That should be obvious even to a diehard right winger such as yourself. There was no Civil War when Hussein was the Strongman. You need a Strongman when you have three different religions all vying for top power. Was he a bad guy? Sure but he was OUR bad guy or don't you remember Rumdummy shaking his hand and April Glaspie, bu$h's ambassador, telling Saddam we would not interfere in his spat with Kuwait.
2. If you think "sovereign" is a big word you have been poorly served by your English teachers.
3, Sure most Dems supported the war, even those like Kerry who should have known better. But the facts are that Cheney made the CIA cook the books so he could say Iraq had WMDs and all that other nonexistent crap. So the Dems bought it, except for those of us who did our homework and had the facts.

[QuickJet]

1. Yes I do think Iraq was better off under Hussein. That should be obvious even to a diehard right winger such as yourself. There was no Civil War when Hussein was the Strongman. You need a Strongman when you have three different religions all vying for top power. Was he a bad guy? Sure but he was OUR bad guy or don't you remember Rumdummy shaking his hand and April Glaspie, bu$h's ambassador, telling Saddam we would not interfere in his spat with Kuwait..
It doesn't matter what YOU think, the Iraqies (73% of them) are in favor of the current government over Hussein.
2. If you think "sovereign" is a big word you have been poorly served by your English teachers..
It's NOT a big word but it does hold a big meaning. Dictatorships are NOT sovereign.
3, Sure most Dems supported the war, even those like Kerry who should have known better. But the facts are that Cheney made the CIA cook the books so he could say Iraq had WMDs and all that other nonexistent crap..
Didn't have to "cook the books" to say Iraq had WMDs. Hussein himself said he had them. After Sept 11, at what point and time do you start taking half cocked leaders seriously? Why is it you critisize Bush for not acting on the "Osama likely to hit U.S." document but completely dissregard someone who openly says he has chemical weapons and wants to see the Death of America. Sadham had 17 resolutions to comply with and he chose not to.
So the Dems bought it, except for those of us who did our homework and had the facts.
Ha ha ha, what homework did YOU do and what facts did YOU have?
What Dems did what???

[Old Texan]

1. Yes I do think Iraq was better off under Hussein. That should be obvious even to a diehard right winger such as yourself. There was no Civil War when Hussein was the Strongman. You need a Strongman when you have three different religions all vying for top power. Was he a bad guy? Sure but he was OUR bad guy or don't you remember Rumdummy shaking his hand and April Glaspie, bu$h's ambassador, telling Saddam we would not interfere in his spat with Kuwait.
2. If you think "sovereign" is a big word you have been poorly served by your English teachers.
3, Sure most Dems supported the war, even those like Kerry who should have known better. But the facts are that Cheney made the CIA cook the books so he could say Iraq had WMDs and all that other nonexistent crap. So the Dems bought it, except for those of us who did our homework and had the facts.
Of all the riduculous things I've seen and heard, your Point #1 is perhaps the most asinine statement I think I've ever read.
English teachers, english professors, rocket scientists, God almighty, Satan, Zeus, Socrates, Aristotle, any real or mythical figure imaginable could not have helped someone like you with the most crackpot perceptions on earth.
If you spend any time at all analyzing the thoughts you purvey, you better look into taking that brain cell of yours back in for warranty 'cause that sucker is broke....................... :rolleyes:
By the way define "diehard right winger". You've obviously jumped to another of your "A S S umptions".

[Knotbad]

It doesn't matter what YOU think, the Iraqies (73% of them) are in favor of the current government over Hussein.
It's NOT a big word but it does hold a big meaning. Dictatorships are NOT sovereign.
Didn't have to "cook the books" to say Iraq had WMDs. Hussein himself said he had them. After Sept 11, at what point and time do you start taking half cocked leaders seriously? Why is it you critisize Bush for not acting on the "Osama likely to hit U.S." document but completely dissregard someone who openly says he has chemical weapons and wants to see the Death of America. Sadham had 17 resolutions to comply with and he chose not to.
Ha ha ha, what homework did YOU do and what facts did YOU have?
What Dems did what???
1. From what orifice did you pull that figure? The one between your buttocks no doubt.
2. Then why did you say it was?
3. The UNSCOM inspectors said they destroyed them. After almost four years of searching, all we have found is a couple of old Russian Migs buried in the sand.
4. Saddam never said Death to America. You have him mixed up with bin Laden.
5. We had him locked down under the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. Every time Iraqi radar locked on to one of our jets we would destroy the position. That seems now to have been a far better policy than sending troops in. Even Tree bu$h and Cheney knew that in 1991 after Gulf War1.

[3 daytona`s]

I was watching O`riely Thursday evening,in his talking point he layed out the most chilling and dreadful theory of our consequences for pulling out before done. I want to state for the ones that are rolling their eyes he supported the war completly from the beginning and always stood up for the administration,he has since made it very clear there have been serious mistakes and things were not planned well after the brilliant original air attack.I`m almost a mirror of his feelings and will admit it and take any shots wish to throw.Now after taking that into mind, his assesment if we pull now there will be total chaos,Iran will take over the Mideast and use the threat of attact with their atomic power.The fact they will control the oil supply in the world prices will skyrocket the modern nations will be panic mode,life will forever be changed. I want to stress he is no longer supporting the war in the original context once did,but supporting it in the way of self-preservation. I do also.His assesment of things have to change in our tactics is imperative.

[Blown 472]

It doesn't matter what YOU think, the Iraqies (73% of them) are in favor of the current government over Hussein.
It's NOT a big word but it does hold a big meaning. Dictatorships are NOT sovereign.
Didn't have to "cook the books" to say Iraq had WMDs. Hussein himself said he had them. After Sept 11, at what point and time do you start taking half cocked leaders seriously? Why is it you critisize Bush for not acting on the "Osama likely to hit U.S." document but completely dissregard someone who openly says he has chemical weapons and wants to see the Death of America. Sadham had 17 resolutions to comply with and he chose not to.
Ha ha ha, what homework did YOU do and what facts did YOU have?
What Dems did what???
Where is that osama feller? he done dropped off the radar, you know him he is the one that killed all them people in ny.

[Old Texan]

Where is that osama feller? he done dropped off the radar, you know him he is the one that killed all them people in ny.
Blown that reply is akin to a pesky fly buzzing around, it provides no substance towards the debate, just shifts attention.
Osama is still being pursued. If alive he's hunkering down deep in some cave. Besides if he were captured or his remains ID'd, you'd just claim Bush was showin' off and trying to take attention away from one of your complaints.

[QuickJet]

1. From what orifice did you pull that figure? The one between your buttocks no doubt..
All major media, including left wing New York times, the AP and the LA times.
2. Then why did you say it was?.
Never did.
3. The UNSCOM inspectors said they destroyed them. After almost four years of searching, all we have found is a couple of old Russian Migs buried in the sand. .
Simply untrue. UN inspectors were NOT allowed to do drop in inspections. They were only allowed to inspect sites days after notification. Obviously giving time for the sites to be "cleaned up"
4. Saddam never said Death to America. You have him mixed up with bin Laden..
Yes he did, Downtown Bagdad in 91 and again after GW was elected for his first tirm. Same balcony, same speach. Sorry that you didn't start paying attention to world events until 2001. Try to catch up.
5. We had him locked down under the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. Every time Iraqi radar locked on to one of our jets we would destroy the position. That seems now to have been a far better policy than sending troops in. Even Tree bu$h and Cheney knew that in 1991 after Gulf War1.
You are the only one that thinks so. It's better to eliminate the tumor than just take medication and "hope" it doesn't spread.
Sadham was our enemy and was taken out of power. Justfully so.

[SmokinLowriderSS]

Boy oh boy. Keep pulling "knowledge": out of knothead, and find out just how much of a loon he is.
So, since Iraq was better off under Saddam, How about the rest of the world? Was it better off when a murderous dictator who wanted weapons of mass destruction was sitting on the $$$$ to make their purchase possible?
So, Iraq was better off, with 10's of thousands being murdered every year by Saddam, and his prodgeny?
Since it has been well established that Uday Hussein was going to take over, and was more sadistically viscious than his father (which must set a reccord somewhere), Iraq would then be better off under HIS rule as well????
UNSCOM inspectors never claimed Saddam had destroyed all his previously known WMD's. If they had, do explain why Saddam was finally forced to issue a report on where all the previously known WMD's went, their verified destruction reccords, etc, and the report WAS PROVEN TO BE INCOMPLETE, thus it was a fraud. It did not account for nearly everything that was previously known of and admitted to. By that, it was yet another violation of the cease-fire.
Here's a part of the 2003 report you can try to deny........ :rolleyes:
IRAQI NON-COMPLIANCE WITH UNSCR 1441
15 March 2003
Background
Iraq has failed to comply fully with 14 previous UN resolutions related to WMD.
UNSCR 1441 is unambiguous: "Recognising the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security" (PP3)
"Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions" (OP1).
"Decides... to afford Iraq, by this resolution, a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Council" (OP2).
"Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq... and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and co-operate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations" (OP4)
blown, Osama is most likely being hidden, by friends (when you have the $$$ he has, you have a LOT of freinds) in Pakistan, in a remote area, along the border, and being kept on the move. Friends are something people have who do not sit arround spouting stupid shyte all the time. I realize that part is what gives you so much trouble.
Besides, just as has been said, if we found him now, you'd claim the stupid line that we have had him for years and just pulled him out of a hole to make political hay, just like was done about saddam.
And speaking of political hay, the genious Nancy Pelosi was busting on the president last week, denying the presence of Al-Queda in Iraq, and accusing him of trumping up something that was settled as a falsehood long ago.
This was 8 days after Al-Queda publicly aknowledged (bragged) of having 16,000 members in Iraq.
More liberal stupidty, and historical revision, but hey, they are in charge now.