Paco Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 I don't disagree with you. The only point I'm trying to make is that we should never have been in Iraq to begin with. Now that we are there we got more then we were looking for. We are in a situation where we may never be able to leave there. That's tons of money and tons of lives easily lost. 99817[/snapback] Dude, would you please read what he wrote and rethink what you wrote. BECAUSE we never took a more aggressive approach, 3,000 people were killed on 9/11. If we don't fight over there, we will have another 9/11. And then another. And then another. We are losing 1100 lives, but we are saving tens of thousands of lives on American soil...and the general freedoms that we have on a daily basis. You DO remember that 3000 Americans were killed a few years ago, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 You canNOT be serious. Do some friggin' research before you come up with something that obviously wrong, OK? Regards, everyone who remembers 1990-1994... and 1975-1986.... and.... http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls 99822[/snapback] facts suck.... ding... goody goody the hot pockets are done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 If we don't fight over there, we will have another 9/11. And then another. And then another. We are losing 1100 lives, but we are saving tens of thousands of lives on American soil...and the general freedoms that we have on a daily basis. You DO remember that 3000 Americans were killed a few years ago, don't you? 99823[/snapback] You really think Iraq was responsible for 9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Which party lives off pandering to the poor again? Oh yeah, that'd be the Democrats. The scare tactic soundbytes are pathetic and stupid. They are also the reason virtually nothing meaningful ever happens in the Beltway. Thanks for playing. 99708[/snapback] Darin=use of word "soundbyte" 532,124 times in his posts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 You canNOT be serious. Do some friggin' research before you come up with something that obviously wrong, OK? Regards, everyone who remembers 1990-1994... and 1975-1986.... and.... http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?bls 99822[/snapback] Bush wouldn't let unemployment drop too low; he added 800,00 government jobs on his watch. You "Conservatives" make me laugh and laugh (and cry and cry). Is there anyone left who believes in smaller government, and is willing to put their vote where their convictions are? Bueller? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 You really think Iraq was responsible for 9/11? 99876[/snapback] That's not what I said. To answer your question, I think Iraq falls under the heading of places that harbor terrorists. Plenty of terrorists, including members of Al Quada, are well documented as being in Iraq. I think by our being in Iraq, they realize we're not going away, and they're coming from all angles to attack us. I think we are fighting terrorists in Iraq right now. The problem is we don't call them terrorists. We call them insurgents, which I think is ridiculous. Just once I'd like to see a headline that says "Terrorists kill 12 Iraqis with car bomb." But I digress. My point is just this: leave Iraq...leave Afghanistan...stop fighting, and you can get ready for many more 9/11-type events. Would you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Darin=use of word "soundbyte" 532,124 times in his posts 99886[/snapback] Your problems with the truth blind you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGTEleven Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Bush wouldn't let unemployment drop too low; he added 800,00 government jobs on his watch. You "Conservatives" make me laugh and laugh (and cry and cry). Is there anyone left who believes in smaller government, and is willing to put their vote where their convictions are? Bueller? 99896[/snapback] I unnecessarily explained my rationale for voting Bush in the other thread where you posed this question. You did not respond to it. That is, of course, your prerogative. It seems to me though that if you are not going to respond to people's answers, it is a bit silly to keep asking the same question over and over. That is why they call it a dicussion board, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VabeachBledsoefan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Your problems with the truth blind you. 99911[/snapback] Hey where's my "soundbyte" reference???darn your Darin..you disappoint me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Is there anyone left who believes in smaller government, and is willing to put their vote where their convictions are? 99896[/snapback] Eh-hem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 You really think Iraq was responsible for 9/11? 99876[/snapback] You really think that if ALL of Al-Qaeda was captured or killed that the war on terrorism would be over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 My point is just this: leave Iraq...leave Afghanistan...stop fighting, and you can get ready for many more 9/11-type events. Would you disagree? 99901[/snapback] Nope. Nor would I agree that our presence in Iraq, which was the topic of my question to you, will stop them. In fact, I'd argue our presence in Iraq has served as fuel for their propaganda. BTW: Iraq was not a "well documented" harbor for terrorists, although it appears to be one now. Hussein wouldn't allow it, and he despised bin Laden. Since the terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi, why didn't we invade them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 OK, I've been trying to avoid going this route because it always creates a problem. Iraq is a campaign in a larger war. That's why it's called an operation. Iraq would have been taken down one way or the other unless SH and friends stepped down, as it is part of the larger problem. It was invaded when it was as there was ample credible evidence that they possessed a significant WMD stockpile and were poised to employ them. They announced themselves as an enemy of the United States. There was particular concern about the biologicals program. I have personally reviewed the intelligence information that took us there. Anyone looking at what we looked at would have agreed. Senator Kerry did. Sadaam was a secularist in philosophy, but at the same time directly supported virtually every single terrorist organization out there. Corruption and mayhem is his version of foreign policy. He had shell companies located all over the world to launder and transfer funds to support terrorist activities. Many located in Europe. We received no support from France or Germany as both of them are complicit, not in the terror aspect directly (although many of the discoverd pre-cursor materials used to make various chemical agents have been found with French labeling) but in the corruption for profit aspects. This is a long term effort, going to take a few years. There are already very tangible results. Has everyone forgotten Libya? Believe me, in spite of the rhetoric Iran will play nice. Once again, this can not be reduced to soundbites. Each of these things (along with many other factors) can not be taken individually, as they are part of a larger picture. Taken separately, they look really crappy. Collectively they become a coherent plan. We are at war. People are going to die. Some have died needlessly, but not needlessly because of the policy. People die for dumb reasons sometimes during a war, as dumb things happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1billsfan Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The poor like staying poor and parents are enjoying watching their children die under Bush. 99699[/snapback] No, they're a lot like their President, they're tired of workin'. Cause workin's hard work, ya know? They're fixin' on being unemployed soon so they'll have more time going to bass fishin' and NASCAR events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 OK, I've been trying to avoid going this route because it always creates a problem. Iraq is a campaign in a larger war. That's why it's called an operation. Iraq would have been taken down one way or the other unless SH and friends stepped down, as it is part of the larger problem. It was invaded when it was as there was ample credible evidence that they possessed a significant WMD stockpile and were poised to employ them. They announced themselves as an enemy of the United States. There was particular concern about the biologicals program. I have personally reviewed the intelligence information that took us there. Anyone looking at what we looked at would have agreed. Senator Kerry did. Sadaam was a secularist in philosophy, but at the same time directly supported virtually every single terrorist organization out there. Corruption and mayhem is his version of foreign policy. He had shell companies located all over the world to launder and transfer funds to support terrorist activities. Many located in Europe. We received no support from France or Germany as both of them are complicit, not in the terror aspect directly (although many of the discoverd pre-cursor materials used to make various chemical agents have been found with French labeling) but in the corruption for profit aspects. This is a long term effort, going to take a few years. There are already very tangible results. Has everyone forgotten Libya? Believe me, in spite of the rhetoric Iran will play nice. Once again, this can not be reduced to soundbites. Each of these things (along with many other factors) can not be taken individually, as they are part of a larger picture. Taken separately, they look really crappy. Collectively they become a coherent plan. We are at war. People are going to die. Some have died needlessly, but not needlessly because of the policy. People die for dumb reasons sometimes during a war, as dumb things happen. 100092[/snapback] So, what you are saying is that we went to war to give no-bid contracts to Haliburton in order for Bush's big oil buddies to profit. Correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 So, what you are saying is that we went to war to give no-bid contracts to Haliburton in order for Bush's big oil buddies to profit. Correct? 100141[/snapback] Exactly. Isn't that what I just said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Exactly. Isn't that what I just said? 100149[/snapback] You were too wordy. You need to condense into soundbite format. I thought I would help you out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 Bush wouldn't let unemployment drop too low; he added 800,00 government jobs on his watch. You "Conservatives" make me laugh and laugh (and cry and cry). Is there anyone left who believes in smaller government, and is willing to put their vote where their convictions are? Bueller? 99896[/snapback] BF: unemployment as high as it's ever been. me: No, it's not. And here's the numbers to prove it. Unlike BF, I assume you're actually old enough to remember the recession in Reagan's first term, and the double-digit unemployment rate. Double-digit > 5.6, which is the last current number I saw. Is there anyone left who believes in smaller government, and is willing to put their vote where their convictions are? If there is, they certainly didn't vote either Democrat or Republican yesterday. Warmest regards, a union-card-carrying "conservative" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The poor like staying poor and parents are enjoying watching their children die under Bush. 99699[/snapback] What did they serve for lunch today, chocolate pudding with plastic spoon? I thought they kept to vanilla to avoid a rush... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolly Posted November 3, 2004 Share Posted November 3, 2004 The poor like staying poor and parents are enjoying watching their children die under Bush. 99699[/snapback] Ya, and I'm sure the thousands of families are real pissed off that Bush has done something about the loss of their family members right? Look at the big picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts