AMERICANS JOLTED BY IRAQ ATROCITIES

Those weren't terrorists, for gods sake, fox. This doesn't support Bush's idiotic move, it speaks against it. This is exactly the sort of event predicted by any number of thoughtful people familiar with the mideast before the war began. We have no option now, but to engage this mess. But let's be clear about who put us there, and why.

blatham wrote:

Those weren't terrorists, for gods sake, fox. This doesn't support Bush's idiotic move, it speaks against it. This is exactly the sort of event predicted by any number of thoughtful people familiar with the mideast before the war began. We have no option now, but to engage this mess. But let's be clear about who put us there, and why.

you are so wrong. It speaks FOR Bush, saying that we need to be there to put an end to this nonsense. Would you rather see America back down and have another 9/11 happen? Our military needs to stand firm and punish those responsible and if that means firebombing Fallujah, so be it.

Would you rather see America back down and have another 9/11 happen? Our military needs to stand firm and punish those responsible and if that means firebombing Fallujah, so be it.

It speaks FOR Bush, saying that we need to be there to put an end to this nonsense.

NOT


last word.

This is just wrong on so many levels. Let's start with your last comment.

Quote:

Would you rather see America back down and have another 9/11 happen? Our military needs to stand firm and punish those responsible and if that means firebombing Fallujah, so be it.

Well, since Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 11th September 2001, how was invading Iraq preventing such an occurrance? In fact, our invasion has had the opposite effect, and has likely made another similar event likely.

And you know for a fact that Al Quaida is not somwhow connected to Saddam?

Bullshit. Also, how is America to blame for the attacks on 9/11?
Those attacks were unprovoked. Once again, another person who is on the wrong side of the argument.

BWShooter wrote:

And you know for a fact that Al Quaida is not somwhow connected to Saddam?

If you have evidence of their involvement, please let the government know, since even they have ceased repeating this lie.

Quote:

Bullshit. Also, how is America to blame for the attacks on 9/11?
Those attacks were unprovoked. Once again, another person who is on the wrong side of the argument.

Although we may indirectly share some blames for the attacks in 2001, that was not what I was refering to, and I would think that you would be able to understand this. the US is however, wholly responsible for the situation it has gotten itself into in Iraq.

hobitbob wrote:

BWShooter wrote:

And you know for a fact that Al Quaida is not somwhow connected to Saddam?

If you have evidence of their involvement, please let the government know, since even they have ceased repeating this lie.

Quote:

Bullshit. Also, how is America to blame for the attacks on 9/11?
Those attacks were unprovoked. Once again, another person who is on the wrong side of the argument.

Although we may indirectly share some blames for the attacks in 2001, that was not what I was refering to, and I would think that you would be able to understand this. the US is however, wholly responsible for the situation it has gotten itself into in Iraq.

1. no, it is NOT alie. There is documented proof that Osama and Saddam come from the same school of terrorism.

2. America got involved because the world expected us to. Should we have just sat by and let the Iraqi citizens continue to be gassed? The world would accuse us of hesitating like we did with the Holocaust during WW2. Open your eyes, liberal hypocrisy has blinded you.

Home Run

(Not)

jackie wrote:

Home Run

(Not)

I think I hit a couple home runs so, yeah.

Hobit, whatever you say. You have proof there is no connection?

Show us. And yes I do consider the Iraqi people free. Would you rather see Saddam still in power? I bet many libs would, but they would continue to blame the prez.

Quote:

Show us. And yes I do consider the Iraqi people free. Would you rather see Saddam still in power? I bet many libs would, but they would continue to blame the prez.

No one her ehas styated that they would prefer Hussein to still be in charge. This is another straw man argument.

no, you either support the war or are against it, there is no fence riding here.

You are either for Saddam staying in power or want him removed.

btw, where is your evidence that there is no connection between Al Quiada and Saddam? I am waiting.

BWShooter wrote:

no, you either support the war or are against it, there is no fence riding here.

It should be obvious that I don't support the invasion of Iraq.

Quote:

You are either for Saddam staying in power or want him removed.

Not the same as the above proposition.

hobitbob wrote:

BWShooter wrote:

no, you either support the war or are against it, there is no fence riding here.

It should be obvious that I don't support the invasion of Iraq.

Quote:

You are either for Saddam staying in power or want him removed.

Not the same as the above proposition.

So you support Saddam staying in power and you hate Bush for trying to change things for the better? Ok, got it. I dont work for the FBI or CIA so I couldnt tell you that there is a connection or not but its safe to say that both men are from the middle east and that region is hostile towards America so why is it far fetched to think they are cooperating w/ each other?
Titus, I bet you fly the hammer and sickle flag over your house.

I have figured out the difference between a simplistic right wing nut like BW here and a simplistic bed wetting liberal like myself.

We both may be idiots, but at least with the leftie you can get a blowjob. :wink: