"it's apples and DVD covers" as to oil and liberation.
I've answered that question silly question of yours already in another thread. I killed some people, and helped some people, so a bit of both, now on with your comparisons.
I killed some people, and helped some people,
Which one's did you kill and which did you help?
Typical, you can't answer the question presented, so you keep trying to turn it on me. You have comfirmed that you don't have a clue, kthanxforplayin'. I understand that you want me to answer more specifically, and then let me guess...you'll make some feeble attempt to try to twist whatever I say into being relevent to who is fighting in Iraq and who's not, who was there before Bushs invasion, or some retarded assumption about how I feel over the war, and the things I say, or maybe you want to send them flowers, either way, it's just not going to happen, not because I can't answer the question, but your really weak character attacks have proved to me that you do not deserve to be engaged in any type of meaningful debate. You can't prove that being in Iraq is what has kept the US from being attacked, and sorry, but government published documents refute your claims that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorist support, or that Saddam had any sort of proliferation of a program for WMD. The only leg you have to stand on is that if we leave Iraq, the fragile puppet government we put in place will crumble, and all of a sudden it will become a mecca of terrorist attacks on the US, which is PURE speculation. I mean really, in your own words, 70% turn out for voting to help us put (yet another) their government in power? Shouldn't that be an indication that they are interested enough to try harder than they are to defend what they have? Not to mention IMO, it is overshadowed by the fact that the longer we stay in Iraq as an occupying force, it only strengthens our enemies resolve. Not only that but simply the fact that Iraq is surrounded by countries that not only had MORE to do with 9/11 and other terrorist attacks on US interest, offered many more reasonable targets for US attack, yet we went into the soft one that didn't, which happens to be the one that we helped put into power, and have a vested interest in concerning big oil money, interesting.
Typical, you can't answer the question presented, so you keep trying to turn it on me.
You have comfirmed that you don't have a clue, kthanxforplayin'.
I understand that you want me to answer more specifically,
and then let me guess...you'll make some feeble attempt to try to twist whatever I say into being relevent to who is fighting in Iraq and who's not, who was there before Bushs invasion, or some retarded assumption about how I feel over the war, and the things I say, or maybe you want to send them flowers, .
either way, it's just not going to happen, not because I can't answer the question, but your really weak character attacks have proved to me that you do not deserve to be engaged in any type of meaningful debate
You can't prove that being in Iraq is what has kept the US from being attacked,
and sorry, but government published documents refute your claims that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorist support, or that Saddam had any sort of proliferation of a program for WMD.
The only leg you have to stand on is that if we leave Iraq, the fragile puppet government we put in place will crumble, and all of a sudden it will become a mecca of terrorist attacks on the US, which is PURE speculation.
I mean really, in your own words, 70% turn out for voting to help us put (yet another) their government in power?
"Our monitors observed a 72% turnout. Iraqis are looking at these elections as an issue of dignity," he said.
Al Jazeera English - Archive - Confusion Surrounds Iraq Poll Turnout
"Iraq Voter Turnout Estimated at 70 Percent"
Iraq Voter Turnout Estimated at 70 Percent
Iraq Voter Turnout Estimated at 70 Percent
Shouldn't that be an indication that they are interested enough to try harder than they are to defend what they have?
Not to mention IMO, it is overshadowed by the fact that the longer we stay in Iraq as an occupying force, it only strengthens our enemies resolve.
Not only that but simply the fact that Iraq is surrounded by countries that not only had MORE to do with 9/11 and other terrorist attacks on US interest, offered many more reasonable targets for US attack, yet we went into the soft one that didn't, which happens to be the one that we helped put into power, and have a vested interest in concerning big oil money, interesting
You can't answer the questions lanceorbenson asked you because you made an absurd statement,
See post 32.
I get my insight from the internet, very handy medium for such things.
Seventy percent plus turnout sound like imposing to you?
Support, probably something you claim to do?
Can you compare Iraq to vietnam?
Sure do!
May 30, 2007
Dry Run Confirmed
A declassified report confirms that Annie Jacobsen accurately recounted suspicious activities on a Northwest flight from Detroit to Los Angeles in the summer of 2004, and that a number of Syrians attempted a dry run for a terror attack. Eight of the 12 had already been flagged for criminal or suspicious behavior, and the apparent leader was involved in a similar incident later as well:
A newly released inspector general report backs eyewitness accounts of suspicious behavior by 13 Middle Eastern men on a Northwest Airlines flight in 2004 and reveals several missteps by government officials, including failure to file an incident report until a month after the matter became public.
According to the Homeland Security report, the "suspicious passengers," 12 Syrians and their Lebanese-born promoter, were traveling on Flight 327 from Detroit to Los Angeles on expired visas. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services extended the visas one week after the June 29, 2004, incident.
The report also says that a background check in the FBI's National Crime Information Center database, which was performed June 18 as part of a visa-extension application, produced "positive hits" for past criminal records or suspicious behavior for eight of the 12 Syrians, who were traveling in the U.S. as a musical group.
In addition, the band's promoter was listed in a separate FBI database on case investigations for acting suspiciously aboard a flight months earlier. He was detained a third time in September on a return trip to the U.S. from Istanbul, the details of which were redacted.
The air marshals and the gate personnel for Northwest knew at the beginning of the flight that these passengers presented a threat. Before the men had even boarded the plane, they started acting suspiciously enough that the air marshals signaled each other about the group. Twenty minutes into the flight, well before Jacobsen contacted a flight attendant, the crew had contacted the air marshals about their concerns. One flight attendant took the unusual step of entering the cockpit an hour into the flight to discuss the concerns with the pilots; cockpits have been locked and barred ever since 9/11.
After all of this, the FBI did not open an investigation into the incident until Jacobsen appeared on MS-NBC's Scarborough Country. The Homeland Security personnel involved did not pass the irnformation along to their Operations Center, even though the leader of the group had been involved in a similar incident in January of that year, on Frontier Airlines. It didn't get logged into the HSOC database until the Washington Times reported it on July 26, 2004. By that time, all 12 Syrians had left the country.
TSA, for its part, said that the matter did not merit a referral since all of the passengers could be "cleared". It's fuzzy about why they thought that, since the DHS found a pattern of suspicious activity for eight of the men involved, including a "similar" incident involving the leader five months earlier. His third time, on a trip back from Istanbul, the FBI finally detained him. DHS rejects the TSA excuse, stating categorically that the incident should have been logged into the HSOC and merited further investigation.
A look at the seating chart shows another reason for suspicion. Despite traveling together (they all supposedly worked as a musical group), they pretended not to notice each other. They got seats that literally put them all over the plane.
Without a doubt, this vindicates Jacobsen and shows that either these men intended to conduct a terrorist dry run, or that they wanted someone to think that they were. It could have been a probe, a test to see just how far they could go without provoking a response. That could explain why the same man was involved in three such incidents. The official line that nothing happened on Flight 327 should embarrass everyone in the Homeland Security system, and someone owes Annie Jacobsen an apology.
"Sure I do"
Yea, that nailed it.
This doesn't surprise me. What sites?
Even assuming those numbers are accurate--God knows the government and the media would NEVER misrepresent the facts--how does that change the fact that the U.S. government is imposing a political system on a sovereign nation?
What does this even mean? Support the troops in what way? By paying taxes? By posting on message boards? If you really believe in our involvement in Iraq then why not go ahead and sign on? The whole "support the troops" line is just empty sloganeering. Festooning your car with Chinese-made American flags and foaming at the mouth while watching Fox News is hardly what I call support. I support bringing the troops home ASAFP.
I can't imagine anyone who knows anything about Vietnam, our withdrawal from there, and the anti-climactic aftermath would try and bring that into this discussion. "Fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" is sounding like the domino theory at this point.
I'd love to hear them.
This doesn't surprise me. What sites?
Even assuming those numbers are accurate--God knows the government and the media would NEVER misrepresent the facts--
how does that change the fact that the U.S. government is imposing a political system on a sovereign nation?
What does this even mean?
Support the troops in what way?
By paying taxes?
By posting on message boards?
If you really believe in our involvement in Iraq then why not go ahead and sign on?
The whole "support the troops" line is just empty sloganeering.
Festooning your car with Chinese-made American flags and foaming at the mouth while watching Fox News is hardly what I call support.
I support bringing the troops home ASAFP.
I can't imagine anyone who knows anything about Vietnam, our withdrawal from there, and the anti-climactic aftermath would try and bring that into this discussion.
"Fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" is sounding like the domino theory at this point.
I'd love to hear them
Just a little something to stir up the "better to fight them there than here" crowd...
Captain's Quarters
But yea, we are MUCH safer here while fighting Iraqis in Iraq.
[Iraqi Information Minister] THere are no terrorist planning attacks on the US here, we are fighting them in Iraq, our borders are completely safe, go back to your homes and turn on your TV, nothing is happening here[/Iraqi Information Minister]
All the ones in my Favs.
I think you can include yourself in that statement.
It's sovereign now, it was a sovereign nation if violation of UN mandates before. Did you miss those UN resolutions?
Do you claim to support the troops? Any way other then your taxes?
Why don't you sign on with Al Qaeda? I'm sure they can use another in house mole.
Only when you say it. Unless you have some examples besides your taxes? What do you call support?
That statement matches the color on your backside.
Why not, how many do you think will die if we leave iraq, roughly three to six million died after we left Vietnam.
This is by all mean a fair comparison, if you think not please explain?
So what's your plan, retreat?
You just have.
Please share.
What facts have I misrepresented?
A sovereign nation? Um, it's a nation under occupation by an invading force. Your grasp of national sovereignty seems to be about the same as GWB's. I don't consider the UN a legitimate body, so if your using that as justification now, well, you lost me.
You said you "support the troops." I just asked in what way, and you have no response. I've read of people sending A/Cs to Iraq, care packages, so on and so forth. What do you do to "support the troops."
I'll make this simple for you: YOU say you support what our government is doing in Iraq. I assume you mean that you believe it to be morally just. If that is the case, why wouldn't you go get involved in the fight? I don't support Al-Quaeda, therefore I'm not going to "sign on" with them.
Again, I asked you what you do to "support the troops" and you simply ignore the question and ask me the same questions. Aren't you proud of your support of troops? Tell us then, what it is you do in that regard.
Already with the personal attacks? You don't know me but you think I am a coward because I disagree with you about the "war" in Iraq. Interesting approach to a dialogue, but it's always easier to resort to name-calling on an anonymous message board.
How many died while we there? What other possible outcome could there have been? Besides, I think pulling out would be pretty Machiavellian actually. Now that we've stirred the pot and got 'em so riled up--with a power vacuum no less--they'd have a field day going after each other. Isn't your goal the death of as many "Muslim extremists" as possible?
YOU made the comparison. The onus is on you to support your assertion if challenged or, I guess, ignore the question. You've obviously chosen the latter.
Call it what you want, but eventually it's going to happen. Why sacrifice more of our soldiers and our money--you do realize we can't afford to continue on--in what is ultimately an endeavor that has no real resolution?
I thought you were going to provide historical documentation. I didn't see any. You get an 'F'.
What facts have I misrepresented?
As far as Ron Paul being a "libby," that's simply wrong.
In 1988, former Republican Congressman Ron Paul won the Libertarian nomination for president and was on the ballot in 46 states. Paul later successfully ran for United States House of Representatives from Texas, once again as a Republican, an office in which he still serves.
Libertarian Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A sovereign nation? Um, it's a nation under occupation by an invading force. Your grasp of national sovereignty seems to be about the same as GWB's. I don't consider the UN a legitimate body, so if your using that as justification now, well, you lost me.
You said you "support the troops." I just asked in what way, and you have no response. I've read of people sending A/Cs to Iraq, care packages, so on and so forth. What do you do to "support the troops."
I'll make this simple for you: YOU say you support what our government is doing in Iraq. I assume you mean that you believe it to be morally just. If that is the case, why wouldn't you go get involved in the fight?
I don't support Al-Quaeda, therefore I'm not going to "sign on" with them.
Again, I asked you what you do to "support the troops" and you simply ignore the question and ask me the same questions. Aren't you proud of your support of troops?
Already with the personal attacks? You don't know me but you think I am a coward because I disagree with you about the "war" in Iraq. Interesting approach to a dialogue, but it's always easier to resort to name-calling on an anonymous message board.
How many died while we there? What other possible outcome could there have been? Besides, I think pulling out would be pretty Machiavellian actually. Now that we've stirred the pot and got 'em so riled up--with a power vacuum no less--they'd have a field day going after each other. Isn't your goal the death of as many "Muslim extremists" as possible?
YOU made the comparison. The onus is on you to support your assertion if challenged or, I guess, ignore the question. You've obviously chosen the latter.
Call it what you want, but eventually it's going to happen. Why sacrifice more of our soldiers and our money--you do realize we can't afford to continue on--in what is ultimately an endeavor that has no real resolution?
I thought you were going to provide historical documentation. I didn't see any. You get an 'F'.
Our occupation is at the self elected governments request.
On the justification note, when Congress voted for war this too was not good enough for you?
After we kicked the **** out of them, we occupied them for years. Built bases which we still operate from. Why would Iraq be different?
responce
I've got a long list, i got a feeling your list you can sum up with one word,
I am in a fight, with the patriotic desentors!
On a second note, do you know how the concept of a Republic works? Do you consider yourself a patriot?
Who do you support them?Again, i am asking you, once you answer me, i'll gladly tell you, but not before.Call it what you will, IMO you are yellow. I only needed five posts to come with this, if you don't like it, don't read.
Do you abdicate retreat, pullout, redeployment? If you answer any of these yes, IMO a coward you are.
You defeatist should get your tail out from between your legs, your balls may even hang down for a change.
We are the richest country in the world, who says we can't afford it.
We've got the money and the man power.
In 1988, former Republican Congressman Ron Paul won the Libertarian nomination for president and was on the ballot in 46 states. Paul later successfully ran for United States House of Representatives from Texas, once again as a Republican, an office in which he still serves.
