Reply With Quote
i don't spin. i spit the TRUTH. you are just dizzy.
do you member when Saddam invaded Kuwait?
just cuz the job wasn't finished in the 1st gulf war doesn't mean Saddam didn't start it. He made his evil intentions known. He harbored weapons that he may have eventually given to those that would use them against us, since he was himself a coward.
Osama started it by waking us up. Their are those that hate to the point they want to kill as many of us Americans as possible. Perhaps you would choose to sit back and wait for 9/11 II, the Second Coming, but i'll go ahead an back a President that Actually Cares about this nations security.
i don't spin. i spit the TRUTH. you are just dizzy.
No, soldiers are DEAD because of Bush lies. Don't hide that. It's real and it's sad. They are dying now as we speak. Hiding the truth is very patriotic isn't it?
You are brainwashed by the" Liberal lie machine ". Sounds like a broken record.
Lies are Lies no matter how u look at em.
They are Dead because they sacraficed their lives to Fight for their country.
If somebody hit yo mama, and said next time, they were gonna hit her even worse, would you ignore it? Or do something about it? Even if it meant your life?
Huh? Tell the truth now.
Your thoughts and logic are lies!
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait threatened the US's oil, not the US.
Dubya has done absolutely nothing to reduce US dependence on M/E oil and now he's going to rape Alaska for a 6 monhts qty of oil that could easily be conserved be if he had promoted oil conservation as aggressively has he has cut taxes for the rich+corps.
"He harbored weapons"
lie. that were never found. Saddam was bluffng to scare off Iran, to avoid showing signs of weakness by admitting he didn't have weapons, and the dubya fell for his bluff, hook, line, and sinker.
Funny how yall ignore this thread.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthre...t=30591&page=1
The decision to go to war in Iraq cannot be undone.
Our choices now are to try to get a stable government established there, or to quit and let the insurgents take control.
While the security situation still sucks, we've had several elections, and the vast majority of Iraqis are getting used to making political decisions with ballots rather than by shooting people. A lot has been accomplished toward getting a stable government there. Yes, it'll be Shia, and yes, it'll probably have an overly cozy relationship with Iran, but it is better for us than the alternative -- a state run by terrorist-friendly thugs.
As of now, the only way the thugs can win the country is if America decides to withdraw in the near term, before Iraqi security forces are strong enough to withstand an attempted coup.
One can claim that going to war was a bad idea, or that they don't trust Bush's credibility, or his leadership. One can claim that the only reason we have to choose between a quasi-theocratic Shia state and a terrorist haven in Iraq is because of Bush's decisions. God knows we've heard plenty of that for two and a half years. But that is in fact the choice that faces us, and withdrawal at this point would be a needless capitulation to a foe that is facing long odds.
People are dead because Bush sent them to fight His war.
And wasn't it Bin Laden who "who hit our mama"?
Huh? Tell the truth now.
sure was. and where are the influx of insurgents coming from?
are they all iraqi?
i guess we set a pretty good trap huh?
American will not differentiate between those that have the capability and motive to provide weapons from those that will actually use the weapons.
and in case you didn't notice, people were DEAD BEFORE we went to iraq.
guess you were asleep that day. but go ahead, go check out the WTC and tell me how the view is from the upper deck.
more pics. could you at least get funny ones?
If the guy behind that was in iraq, I could see the point.guess you were asleep that day. but go ahead, go check out the WTC and tell me how the view is from the upper deck.
How's that Zak?
^better
but CD, do you guys advocate WAITING for the 2nd attack of 9/11 proportions to respond?
wouldn't it have been better to stop the 1st 9.11 if possible?
do you disagree that Saddam had millions if not more in assetts with the Iraqi oil which he could have used to supply countless terrorists?
do you disagree that Saddam had hatred for the United States?
do you disagree that Saddam would have done it if given the chance?
I guess you Choose to Have FAITH in Saddam instead of Bush.
That's you guys choice. Not mine.
Although I don't believe Saddam should be put to death. I believe he should be allowed to live out his life in a max security prison. Til death do us part.
Well it would have helped to read the CIA briefing that warned Bush " Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States" prior to it happening.
Way to go Mr. President.
He had two chances to use WMDs on US forces under the pretext of defending his country.do you disagree that Saddam would have done it if given the chance?
He didn't.Stupid straw man. It's a matter of priorities. Saddam is way down the list of potential threats to mainland US, plain and simple.I guess you Choose to Have FAITH in Saddam instead of Bush.
I suppose since we haven't invaded North Korea or Iran YOU have faith in their leaders, right?
it would have helped if Clinton didn't poke the beehive to take attention away from his affair as well.
spilt milk.
but what to do now? Finish the Job.
so are you advocating invading those countries?
or do you realize that they have nuclear capabilities and that diplomatic relations are the best course of action at the present time?
Since those seem to have eliminated all the WMDs in Iraq before we invaded, I'd say that's probably a good idea.or do you realize that they have nuclear capabilities and that diplomatic relations are the best course of action at the present time?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
