Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I mean fuck, instead of making peace with most of the Islamic world we invaded one of their nations. So much for winning their hearts and minds. I know if I had a chance to talk to Bin Laden, I'd take him by the hand and say, "what is the problem, mister!?"  And then I'd listen carefully and promise to change to keep from offending him, if he'd only stop trying to kill us.  Fair is fair, right? Quoted: Why isn't Bin Laden's head on a pike yet? Bin Laden isn't from Iraq. Iraq was a secular dictatorship (Not an Islamic Fundamentalist nuthouse lilke we're making it into) that had nothing to do with 9/11 or current terrorism in general. Attacking Iraq over terrorism is akin to theoretically attacking Switzerland over the Nazis invading Poland.

 

Really?  Was it Saddam that paid Palistinian suicide bombers familys 50 grand if they killed jews?  Or am I wrong?  Is that not Islamic Fundamentalism at it's core?
And you're avoiding the fact he did have uranium in clear violation in the UN treaties.  

This soon will be a republican gun board, because if you keep voting for liberals, one day only republicans will have guns.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I mean fuck, instead of making peace with most of the Islamic world we invaded one of their nations. So much for winning their hearts and minds. I know if I had a chance to talk to Bin Laden, I'd take him by the hand and say, "what is the problem, mister!?"  And then I'd listen carefully and promise to change to keep from offending him, if he'd only stop trying to kill us.  Fair is fair, right? Quoted: Why isn't Bin Laden's head on a pike yet? Bin Laden isn't from Iraq. Iraq was a secular dictatorship (Not an Islamic Fundamentalist nuthouse lilke we're making it into) that had nothing to do with 9/11 or current terrorism in general. Attacking Iraq over terrorism is akin to theoretically attacking Switzerland over the Nazis invading Poland.   Really?  Was it Saddam that paid Palistinian suicide bombers familys 50 grand if they killed jews?  Or am I wrong?  Is that not Islamic Fundamentalism at it's core? And you're avoiding the fact he did have uranium in clear violation in the UN treaties.   This soon will be a republican gun board, because if you keep voting for liberals, one day only republicans will have guns.

Yeah, it'll be Republican because most of you alienated the liberals from ever seeking to try out firearms ever. Maybe if you'd try and show them that their position on firearms is wrong (Such as inviting them to the range or actually putting up a debate) instead of calling them moonbats or libtards things would work a whole lot different.

Yeah, that Padilla character was just a good ole American:

Padilla, for readers who may have forgotten, is the Brooklyn-born former gang leader who was recruited by al Qaeda, trained in Afghanistan, and equipped, funded and dispatched back to America. The "battlefield" in this case was to be American apartment buildings, which Padilla is accused of plotting to blow up. President Bush designated him an enemy combatant in 2002. The "locus of capture" is "irrelevant," Judge Luttig writes. Common sense says that Padilla poses the same threat of returning to the battlefield whether he was captured at home or abroad.

In previous wars, Americans who conspired to kill their fellow citizens were subject to trial by military commission, an option the President expressly ruled out in his post-9/11 order limiting military tribunals to non-citizens. Padilla's supporters want him to be charged in the criminal justice system or released. They include the American Civil Liberties Union, the People for the American Way Foundation, and former Clinton Justice officials Janet Reno, Eric Holder and Philip Heymann, who all want a return to the days of treating terrorism like a law-enforcement problem. In the week of the 9/11 anniversary, we're glad the Fourth Circuit didn't authorize a return to this September 10 mindset.

Nothing like going to Afghan and being trained by AL Queda to screw up your citizenship rights.

Quoted: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sigline material right there.

Sounds like 1984 speak....

Who cares?  Letterman is a horrible comedian and O'Reilly is an even worse talking head.  A debate between a jar of mayo and a slice of cheese would be more intellectually stimulating.

Quoted: Quoted: You just moved the goal post..you said we were supposed to be in Iraq because of WMD's..I said it wa the war against terror. It is now proven that with the advent of the insurgents, that Iraq was/is a haven for terrorist. We have not had to fight them on American soil,we are fighting them in Iraq. You are mistaken.

No, he's not.

It was never mentioned before we went to war with iraq about Iraq being a haven for terrorists. The sole claim was saddam was a threat to the U.S and their allies because of the possibility for the use of WMD and UN violations. Now that the war was started and still continues terrorists are flocking to iraq by the thousands. That is a good thing because we can fight them over there vs here. There is no proof that iraq was a haven for terrorists. I am all for the war in iraq but lets not confuse the facts.

Remember, there were terrorists in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was training (remember the airliner body at the training camp in Baghdad?). Here's what no less an authority than the White House has said:

Iraq is one of seven countries that have been designated by the Secretary of State as state sponsors of international terrorism. UNSCR 687 prohibits Saddam Hussein from committing or supporting terrorism, or allowing terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Saddam continues to violate these UNSCR provisions. In 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) directed and pursued an attempt to assassinate, through the use of a powerful car bomb, former U.S. President George Bush and the Emir of Kuwait. Kuwaiti authorities thwarted the terrorist plot and arrested 16 suspects, led by two Iraqi nationals. Iraq shelters terrorist groups including the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization (MKO), which has used terrorist violence against Iran and in the 1970s was responsible for killing several U.S. military personnel and U.S. civilians. Iraq shelters several prominent Palestinian terrorist organizations in Baghdad, including the Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), which is known for aerial attacks against Israel and is headed by Abu Abbas, who carried out the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murdered U.S. citizen Leon Klinghoffer. Iraq shelters the Abu Nidal Organization, an international terrorist organization that has carried out terrorist attacks in twenty countries, killing or injuring almost 900 people. Targets have included the United States and several other Western nations. Each of these groups have offices in Baghdad and receive training, logistical assistance, and financial aid from the government of Iraq. In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. The rules for rewarding suicide/homicide bombers are strict and insist that only someone who blows himself up with a belt of explosives gets the full payment. Payments are made on a strict scale, with different amounts for wounds, disablement, death as a "martyr" and $25,000 for a suicide bomber. Mahmoud Besharat, a representative on the West Bank who is handing out to families the money from Saddam, said, "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue." Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

I know that the temptation will be to explain away these terrorists as "not threatening American interests," which is merely a dodge for the intellectually weak to avoid confronting bullies.

Finally, there was a terrorist group in Iraq taking shelter and haven from the relentless ass-kicking a superpower was giving them: one kindly gentleman named Abu-Musab Al-Zarqawi, who likes to blow up wedding receptions, was taking medical treatments from Ol' Saddam. He brought with him a fine young cadre of eager murderers, and this was happening all prior to the invasion. How did he become injured? Fighting us in Afghanistan.

So, whatdya say to that?

You have to remember, the USA doesn't go to war against another country for reasons A, B, and C.  The USA puts the smack down on others who persistantly over time threaten or attack our interests.  The islamic war against the Western world started a long long time ago, but the USA never really particapated in the war until 2001.  Afganistan was selected because of bin Laden.  Iraq was selected because it had the largest military in the islamic world.  Smack the biggest bully on the block the rest of the bullies will mind you.  WMD and terrorists were reasons given out to satisfy liberals and lawyers because they don't understand the bully analogy.  Libya minds the USA now.  Lebanon is getting rid of Syria.  Lots of progress in the name of individual rights has been made and liberals and lawyers just can't stand it.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I mean fuck, instead of making peace with most of the Islamic world we invaded one of their nations. So much for winning their hearts and minds. I know if I had a chance to talk to Bin Laden, I'd take him by the hand and say, "what is the problem, mister!?"  And then I'd listen carefully and promise to change to keep from offending him, if he'd only stop trying to kill us.  Fair is fair, right? Quoted: Why isn't Bin Laden's head on a pike yet? Bin Laden isn't from Iraq. Iraq was a secular dictatorship (Not an Islamic Fundamentalist nuthouse lilke we're making it into) that had nothing to do with 9/11 or current terrorism in general. Attacking Iraq over terrorism is akin to theoretically attacking Switzerland over the Nazis invading Poland.   Really?  Was it Saddam that paid Palistinian suicide bombers familys 50 grand if they killed jews?  Or am I wrong?  Is that not Islamic Fundamentalism at it's core? And you're avoiding the fact he did have uranium in clear violation in the UN treaties.   This soon will be a republican gun board, because if you keep voting for liberals, one day only republicans will have guns. Yeah, it'll be Republican because most of you alienated the liberals from ever seeking to try out firearms ever. Maybe if you'd try and show them that their position on firearms is wrong (Such as inviting them to the range or actually putting up a debate) instead of calling them moonbats or libtards things would work a whole lot different.

I'll be honest with you, in my history class in college, we had a debate about the right to keep and bear arms.  There was no way to have a civil debate as the "liberal" minded students just kepts yelling and getting upset about it.  Finally our teacher had to stop the "debate" because I kept getting called names in the middle of a rant.  So no, I don't call liberals names as "liberal" is the worst thing they could possibly be called.

Liberal politicians won't ever stop the gun grabbing.  I'm glad you're a gun owner, it's just too bad you take it for granted by putting these slimeballs into office.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Now hold on... I thought Sodamn Insane gassed a bunch of people or some shit back in the day... Last time I checked Chemical Weapons were a type of WMD correct? So he had them right? And they found mortar rounds that had low grade nerve agent in them not long after Bagdad fell. DLoken is just another DU troll, and not a very good one.

Heresay, give me a news article from a reputable news source.[/quote

I am afraid your reputable news sources would be CBS or CNN. The little rant of the Democrates about "no WMD's is nothing but that-polictical bullshit. Weapon grade uranium can be made into a atomic gun bore bomb rather quickly. How hard would it be for Sadam and the Soviet Special Forces to move 100 pounds of it to Syria. 100 pounds is all you need to take out a city. History will be the ultimate judge as to whether the invasion of Iraq was the right move or not.

Quoted: ^^^ I proved you wrong and made you look dumb and all you can do is call me a pussy from behind your monitor. Who's the pussy now?

What exactly have you proved again?  Didn't you say we should be winning the hearts and minds of the "Islamic world"?  Isn't Bin Laden a part of the Islamic world? Was not Iraq one of "their" countries?

You get backed into a corner of your own making, and then you pretend you're the only one that makes sense.

And yeah, if your solution to terrorism and the thugs and dictators of the Islamic world is appeasement, you're a big fucking pussy.

ETA: Don't call me a pussy, stupid pussy gnome

Quoted: How could anybody look like a moonbat standing next to the world's biggest public dickhead? What'd Letterman do, refuse to share the loofah with Mr. Middle Class Values?

touche.

One more thing for the moonbat, libtard..we did'nt start this war..we have only just joined it as the terrorist have been at war with us for 20 years. It took a President interested in America's protection and not a women's lips on his penis, to do something about the threat.

Quoted: One more thing for the moonbat, libtard..we did'nt start this war..we have only just joined it as the terrorist have been at war with us for 20 years. It took a President interested in America's protection and not a women's lips on his penis, to do something about the threat.

Let's repeat this. IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM. Iraq was a 2nd world shithole controlled by a horrible despot who deserves a bullet in his head but saying they had anything to do with 9/11 or terrorism against the US is being intellectually dishonest.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I mean fuck, instead of making peace with most of the Islamic world we invaded one of their nations. So much for winning their hearts and minds. I know if I had a chance to talk to Bin Laden, I'd take him by the hand and say, "what is the problem, mister!?"  And then I'd listen carefully and promise to change to keep from offending him, if he'd only stop trying to kill us.  Fair is fair, right? Quoted: Why isn't Bin Laden's head on a pike yet? Bin Laden isn't from Iraq. Iraq was a secular dictatorship (Not an Islamic Fundamentalist nuthouse lilke we're making it into) that had nothing to do with 9/11 or current terrorism in general. Attacking Iraq over terrorism is akin to theoretically attacking Switzerland over the Nazis invading Poland.   Really?  Was it Saddam that paid Palistinian suicide bombers familys 50 grand if they killed jews?  Or am I wrong?  Is that not Islamic Fundamentalism at it's core? And you're avoiding the fact he did have uranium in clear violation in the UN treaties.   This soon will be a republican gun board, because if you keep voting for liberals, one day only republicans will have guns.

No, you are wrong about that.
Saddam was as secular as they come.
He only started appealing to Muslim brotherhood during the gulf war cause he didn't like his neighbors ganging up on him.
The "allah akbar" on the Iraqi flag has only been there since 1991 or so.
Don't let stuff like that fall down the memory hole.

Quoted: Let's repeat this. IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I mean fuck, instead of making peace with most of the Islamic world we invaded one of their nations. So much for winning their hearts and minds. I know if I had a chance to talk to Bin Laden, I'd take him by the hand and say, "what is the problem, mister!?"  And then I'd listen carefully and promise to change to keep from offending him, if he'd only stop trying to kill us.  Fair is fair, right? Quoted: Why isn't Bin Laden's head on a pike yet? Bin Laden isn't from Iraq. Iraq was a secular dictatorship (Not an Islamic Fundamentalist nuthouse lilke we're making it into) that had nothing to do with 9/11 or current terrorism in general. Attacking Iraq over terrorism is akin to theoretically attacking Switzerland over the Nazis invading Poland.   Really?  Was it Saddam that paid Palistinian suicide bombers familys 50 grand if they killed jews?  Or am I wrong?  Is that not Islamic Fundamentalism at it's core? And you're avoiding the fact he did have uranium in clear violation in the UN treaties.   This soon will be a republican gun board, because if you keep voting for liberals, one day only republicans will have guns. No, you are wrong about that. Saddam was as secular as they come. He only started appealing to Muslim brotherhood during the gulf war cause he didn't like his neighbors ganging up on him. The "allah akbar" on the Iraqi flag has only been there since 1991 or so. Don't let stuff like that fall down the memory hole.

Huh?   Bin Laden started Al Qaeda in 1988, that doesn't make him any less evil.
And yes, Saddam DID pay suicide bombers/family when they carried out an attack against Isreal.
Your memory hole must be as deep as a dinner plate.

Quoted: Quoted: One more thing for the moonbat, libtard..we did'nt start this war..we have only just joined it as the terrorist have been at war with us for 20 years. It took a President interested in America's protection and not a women's lips on his penis, to do something about the threat. Let's repeat this. IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISM. Iraq was a 2nd world shithole controlled by a horrible despot who deserves a bullet in his head but saying they had anything to do with 9/11 or terrorism against the US is being intellectually dishonest.

Bull schitt and you know it or ignore the nightly news. When the last time any honesty, intelectually or not, came from a liberal. This is'nt about the war against terror. It's about loss of power. Liberals were head over heels at going to war because it was politically expedient at the time, just like everything with liberals, only later do they regret for not "standing up" for their true cowardess and power hunger. If it can get a liberal into power they are for it. If it diminshes the power/approval/control of Republicans, liberals will use it against them even at the cost of national security. The liberal media whined and moaned at the casualty counts..then they hit a magical number thinking this cause public opinion to sway and end the war in Iraq. Why? Becuase of saving soldiers lives? No. if that were the case they would do everything within their power to support them until the job is complete. The job is not done nor complete. it does'nt end with a magical death number nor does it end with socialist/liberal mom whining about her son's choice to serve and sacrifice his life.

We will never defeat another enemy if they bow to the cowardess and weakness of the liberal side of America.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I mean fuck, instead of making peace with most of the Islamic world we invaded one of their nations. So much for winning their hearts and minds. I know if I had a chance to talk to Bin Laden, I'd take him by the hand and say, "what is the problem, mister!?"  And then I'd listen carefully and promise to change to keep from offending him, if he'd only stop trying to kill us.  Fair is fair, right? Quoted: Why isn't Bin Laden's head on a pike yet? Bin Laden isn't from Iraq. Iraq was a secular dictatorship (Not an Islamic Fundamentalist nuthouse lilke we're making it into) that had nothing to do with 9/11 or current terrorism in general. Attacking Iraq over terrorism is akin to theoretically attacking Switzerland over the Nazis invading Poland.   Really?  Was it Saddam that paid Palistinian suicide bombers familys 50 grand if they killed jews?  Or am I wrong?  Is that not Islamic Fundamentalism at it's core? And you're avoiding the fact he did have uranium in clear violation in the UN treaties.   This soon will be a republican gun board, because if you keep voting for liberals, one day only republicans will have guns. No, you are wrong about that. Saddam was as secular as they come. He only started appealing to Muslim brotherhood during the gulf war cause he didn't like his neighbors ganging up on him. The "allah akbar" on the Iraqi flag has only been there since 1991 or so. Don't let stuff like that fall down the memory hole.

I believe our currency has "In God We Trust" on it. Does that make us a theocracy?

Quoted: Yeah, that Padilla character was just a good ole American: Padilla, for readers who may have forgotten, is the Brooklyn-born former gang leader who was recruited by al Qaeda, trained in Afghanistan, and equipped, funded and dispatched back to America. The "battlefield" in this case was to be American apartment buildings, which Padilla is accused of plotting to blow up. President Bush designated him an enemy combatant in 2002. The "locus of capture" is "irrelevant," Judge Luttig writes. Common sense says that Padilla poses the same threat of returning to the battlefield whether he was captured at home or abroad. In previous wars, Americans who conspired to kill their fellow citizens were subject to trial by military commission, an option the President expressly ruled out in his post-9/11 order limiting military tribunals to non-citizens. Padilla's supporters want him to be charged in the criminal justice system or released. They include the American Civil Liberties Union, the People for the American Way Foundation, and former Clinton Justice officials Janet Reno, Eric Holder and Philip Heymann, who all want a return to the days of treating terrorism like a law-enforcement problem. In the week of the 9/11 anniversary, we're glad the Fourth Circuit didn't authorize a return to this September 10 mindset. Nothing like going to Afghan and being trained by AL Queda to screw up your citizenship rights.

Shithead or not he IS a US citizen and deserves his day in court which he is finally getting.

Quoted: I believe our currency has "In God We Trust" on it. Does that make us a theocracy?

Are you saying you're in favor of God being on government documents, buildings, and openly in the public square?  Are you sure that doesn't violate the establishment clause?

Sadam also plotted to kill a US president, G H Bush.
Moonbat !

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I mean fuck, instead of making peace with most of the Islamic world we invaded one of their nations. So much for winning their hearts and minds. I know if I had a chance to talk to Bin Laden, I'd take him by the hand and say, "what is the problem, mister!?"  And then I'd listen carefully and promise to change to keep from offending him, if he'd only stop trying to kill us.  Fair is fair, right? Quoted: Why isn't Bin Laden's head on a pike yet? Bin Laden isn't from Iraq. Iraq was a secular dictatorship (Not an Islamic Fundamentalist nuthouse lilke we're making it into) that had nothing to do with 9/11 or current terrorism in general. Attacking Iraq over terrorism is akin to theoretically attacking Switzerland over the Nazis invading Poland.   Really?  Was it Saddam that paid Palistinian suicide bombers familys 50 grand if they killed jews?  Or am I wrong?  Is that not Islamic Fundamentalism at it's core? And you're avoiding the fact he did have uranium in clear violation in the UN treaties.   This soon will be a republican gun board, because if you keep voting for liberals, one day only republicans will have guns. No, you are wrong about that. Saddam was as secular as they come. He only started appealing to Muslim brotherhood during the gulf war cause he didn't like his neighbors ganging up on him. The "allah akbar" on the Iraqi flag has only been there since 1991 or so. Don't let stuff like that fall down the memory hole. I believe our currency has "In God We Trust" on it. Does that make us a theocracy?

Not saying it does.
If you read my post, I am saying that while Saddam may have supported terrorism after his defeat in the gulf war, he has never been, and never will be, a Muslim fanatic, or motivated by Islam.

Bad dude who gave money to Al qaeda and other terrorist groups?
You betcha.
Bad dude who let tangos train in his country.
Yupper.
Bad dude who was a Muslim fanatic?
Not so, Joe.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How did "WE" lie about WMDs, perhaps you mean the US Government. ALthough at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Complex SE of Baghdad there sure was ALOT of Uranium. Matt45 and I would know this for fact, before you get all huffy about proof, we where there. Having a bit of uranium is a FAR deal away from having a working nuke. Also not all uranium is suitable for making nuclear weapons. Really? Can you tell us what kind of uranium a totalitarian shithead would need to make a dirty bomb? http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/6/9/163246.shtml - Scientists Say Uranium 'Dirty Bomb' Would Be a Dud "But uranium's extremely low radioactivity is harmless compared with high-radiation materials, such as cesium and cobalt isotopes used in medicine and industry that experts see as potential fuel for dirty bombs. "I used a 20-pound brick of uranium as a doorstop in my office," American nuclear physicist Peter D. Zimmerman, of King's College in London, said to illustrate the point. Zimmerman, co-author of an expert analysis of dirty bombs for the U.S. National Defense University, said last week's government announcement was "extremely disturbing, because you cannot make a radiological dispersal device with uranium. There is just no significant radiation hazard."

OK, you got me. My ignorance let me believe that the uranium could be processed into a more deadly substance that would be easily distributed via truck bomb and have injurious or deadly effects on a mass of people; that scenario is far better played out with various isotopes of Cesium or Cobalt. Iraq had industrial and medical uses for those substances, but in no research I could find did it say that they were collecting any more of them than necessary for purposes other than the typical ones.

But the question remains, and remains as well about Iran, why Iraq felt compelled to obtain yellowcake from sources in Africa (?) in spite of U.N. resolutions to the contrary? What were they thinking they'd do with the stuff?

We'll never know, 'cause New York missed out on its glory oportunity (I hope) to be turned into a  radioactive pyre. We can guess, however - they were going to wait until our attention went to something else, then they were going to make nuclear bombs with the stuff and kill our families.

Now, for Iran...

Another great moonbat from the left:

"For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?" -- University Professor Ward Churchill on supporting soldiers who frag their officers

Quoted: Another great moonbat from the left: "For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who's already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn't conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?" -- University Professor Ward Churchill on supporting soldiers who frag their officers

that dude is a fuckhead.
how'd he like it if one of his students frags him?

sigh