Now We Know Where The Evil Ones Get Their Weapons

The fact that a person can admit they invaded for WMD's that were, from Jesus george's own lips, (finally) never there.... and still support the war.... is the best argument for euthenasia I've ever heard.....

Brandon9000 wrote:

The immense respect liberals have for promoting world democracy is very much in evidence.

Where did you learn that getting oil contracts is really building democracy?

BBB

So, just so I have this straight... Iran and China get some parts from our surplus via weapons dealers, and now Bush is guilty of selling arms to our enemies?

Not even stretch Armstrong could go that far.

McGentrix wrote:

So, just so I have this straight... Iran and China get some parts from our surplus via weapons dealers, and now Bush is guilty of selling arms to our enemies?

Not even stretch Armstrong could go that far.

I don't see where my thread title, the text of my original post , or the article said bush was selling weapons..... but as the commander in chief I'm pretty sure even MASSIVE F*CK UPS LIKE THIS need to stop at his desk. He is after all the decider and he decides, or so he says.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

The fact that a person can admit they invaded for WMD's that were, from Jesus george's own lips, (finally) never there.... and still support the war.... is the best argument for euthenasia I've ever heard.....

We know that Iraq's once active WMD development programs, and whatever weapons existed, are not there now precisely because we invaded.

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

So, just so I have this straight... Iran and China get some parts from our surplus via weapons dealers, and now Bush is guilty of selling arms to our enemies?

Not even stretch Armstrong could go that far.

I don't see where my thread title, the text of my original post , or the article said bush was selling weapons..... but as the commander in chief I'm pretty sure even MASSIVE F*CK UPS LIKE THIS need to stop at his desk. He is after all the decider and he decides, or so he says.

I don't see in my post where I was addressing you specifically. I doubt things like selling surplus parts makes it to the desk of the President.

Perhaps you could take some of your self-righteous waffle and share it with revel, who, incidentally, made the post I was responding to.

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The immense respect liberals have for promoting world democracy is very much in evidence.

Where did you learn that getting oil contracts is really building democracy?

BBB

Trying to protect a democratically elected government in a new democracy from being overrun by barbarians constitutes supporting democracy, does it not? Your utter indiference to the issue is disgusting.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

The fact that a person can admit they invaded for WMD's that were, from Jesus george's own lips, (finally) never there.... and still support the war.... is the best argument for euthenasia I've ever heard.....

We know that Iraq's once active WMD development programs, and whatever weapons existed, are not there now precisely because we invaded.

Nonsense.

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The immense respect liberals have for promoting world democracy is very much in evidence.

Where did you learn that getting oil contracts is really building democracy?

BBB

Trying to protect a democratically elected government in a new democracy from being overrun by barbarians constitutes supporting democracy, does it not? Your utter indiference to the issue is disgusting.

The 'democratically elected government' you speak of is staffed and run by Barbarians. Those we are trying to protect are the same people you want to fight against in Iran - radical shiites.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The immense respect liberals have for promoting world democracy is very much in evidence.

Where did you learn that getting oil contracts is really building democracy?

BBB

Trying to protect a democratically elected government in a new democracy from being overrun by barbarians constitutes supporting democracy, does it not? Your utter indiference to the issue is disgusting.

The 'democratically elected government' you speak of is staffed and run by Barbarians. Those we are trying to protect are the same people you want to fight against in Iran - radical shiites.

Cycloptichorn

I want to protect a democratically elected government from people who want a dictatorship. If the insurgents believed in democracy, they would have merely run candidates.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The immense respect liberals have for promoting world democracy is very much in evidence.

Where did you learn that getting oil contracts is really building democracy?

BBB

Trying to protect a democratically elected government in a new democracy from being overrun by barbarians constitutes supporting democracy, does it not? Your utter indiference to the issue is disgusting.

The 'democratically elected government' you speak of is staffed and run by Barbarians. Those we are trying to protect are the same people you want to fight against in Iran - radical shiites.

Cycloptichorn

I want to protect a democratically elected government from people who want a dictatorship. If the insurgents believed in democracy, they would have merely run candidates.

They did - the Sunnis control a small bloc of the government.

You seem to confuse 'belief in democracy' with 'not going to fight any more.' The two are not mutually exclusive.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The immense respect liberals have for promoting world democracy is very much in evidence.

Where did you learn that getting oil contracts is really building democracy?

BBB

Trying to protect a democratically elected government in a new democracy from being overrun by barbarians constitutes supporting democracy, does it not? Your utter indiference to the issue is disgusting.

The 'democratically elected government' you speak of is staffed and run by Barbarians. Those we are trying to protect are the same people you want to fight against in Iran - radical shiites.

Cycloptichorn

I want to protect a democratically elected government from people who want a dictatorship. If the insurgents believed in democracy, they would have merely run candidates.

They did - the Sunnis control a small bloc of the government.

You seem to confuse 'belief in democracy' with 'not going to fight any more.' The two are not mutually exclusive.

Cycloptichorn

I doubt that the Sunnis who participated in the election are the same Sunnis who are trying to bring down the government.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

The immense respect liberals have for promoting world democracy is very much in evidence.

Where did you learn that getting oil contracts is really building democracy?

BBB

Trying to protect a democratically elected government in a new democracy from being overrun by barbarians constitutes supporting democracy, does it not? Your utter indiference to the issue is disgusting.

The 'democratically elected government' you speak of is staffed and run by Barbarians. Those we are trying to protect are the same people you want to fight against in Iran - radical shiites.

Cycloptichorn

I want to protect a democratically elected government from people who want a dictatorship. If the insurgents believed in democracy, they would have merely run candidates.

They did - the Sunnis control a small bloc of the government.

You seem to confuse 'belief in democracy' with 'not going to fight any more.' The two are not mutually exclusive.

Cycloptichorn

I doubt that the Sunnis who participated in the election are the same Sunnis who are trying to bring down the government.

Sure they are. Same way that the Shiites who particpated in the election are the same ones running the militias.

Cycloptichorn

If I believed that the insurgents' goal was completely limited to getting us out, and not to influence the direction of the government by force, and that if we left, almost all of the fighting would stop and that they would support the government, and only try to influence it through legislation thereafter, I would be in favor of an immediate withdrawal. Is this in fact what you believe?

Brandon9000 wrote:

If I believed that the insurgents' goal was completely limited to getting us out, and not to influence the direction of the government by force, and that if we left, almost all of the fighting would stop and that they would support the government, and only try to influence it through legislation thereafter, I would be in favor of an immediate withdrawal. Is this in fact what you believe?

Mr Brandon, Imagine this graph without attacks on coalition forces. That would be the result of our withdrawal.

Zippo wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

If I believed that the insurgents' goal was completely limited to getting us out, and not to influence the direction of the government by force, and that if we left, almost all of the fighting would stop and that they would support the government, and only try to influence it through legislation thereafter, I would be in favor of an immediate withdrawal. Is this in fact what you believe?

Mr Brandon, Imagine this graph without attacks on coalition forces. That would be the result of our withdrawal.

That is an unjustified conclusion. With us out of the way, the insurgents might focus on overthrowing the government.

If I believed that the insurgents' goal was completely limited to getting us out, and not to influence the direction of the government by force, and that if we left, almost all of the fighting would stop and that they would support the government, and only try to influence it through legislation thereafter, I would be in favor of an immediate withdrawal. Is this in fact what you believe?

That is an unjustified conclusion. With us out of the way, the insurgents might focus on overthrowing the government.

Brandon9000 wrote:

That is an unjustified conclusion. With us out of the way, the insurgents might focus on overthrowing the government.

What makes you think they won't do that when we eventually do leave Iraq. Their sectarian conflict could last for 50 years, assassinating 50 PM's.