Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 2/24/2007 5:48:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 5:48:35 AM EST by CitySlicker]
The following statement was issued just weeks before the 9/11 attacks:

"The battle [against the U.S.] continues on the economic, political and military fields. We are convinced we will be victorious."
~Saddam Hussein


Not saying he was culpable for, or had prior knowledge of, the attacks, just that he was clearly an enemy of the United States, and his actions indicated that he intended to do harm to the US and our interests in the region.

This fucktard needed to be eliminated.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:52:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
The following statement was issued just weeks before the 9/11 attacks:

"The battle [against the U.S.] continues on the economic, political and military fields. We are convinced we will be victorious."
~Saddam Hussein


Not saying he was culpable for, or had prior knowledge of, the attacks, just that he was clearly an enemy of the United States, and his actions indicated that he intended to do harm to the US and our interests in the region.

This fucktard needed to be eliminated.


If you want to attack every country that competes with us economically, politically and militarily, you should be prepared to triple or quadruple the size of the military with a corresponding rise in taxes and start the body bag contract as soon as possible.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:53:14 AM EST
Liberals look at that today and probably see a common goal.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:56:58 AM EST
It didn't take long for a Saddam apologist to show up, did it?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:59:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 6:03:38 AM EST by CitySlicker]

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
"The battle [against the U.S.] continues on the economic, political and military fields. We are convinced we will be victorious."
~Saddam Hussein



Originally Posted By jimb100:
If you want to attack every country that competes with us economically, politically and militarily, you should be prepared to triple or quadruple the size of the military with a corresponding rise in taxes and start the body bag contract as soon as possible.





Silly me, he's just trying to "compete" with us.

EDIT: ANY leader that says his country will be "victorious" in ANY "battle" with the United States--be it economically, politically, or militarily--is a threat to our national security. Period.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:02:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By GBME:
It didn't take long for a Saddam apologist to show up, did it?


The Bush apologists are notably a bit slow.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:02:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By jimb100:


If you want to attack every country that competes with us economically, politically and militarily, you should be prepared to triple or quadruple the size of the military with a corresponding rise in taxes and start the body bag contract as soon as possible.


You can't be serious.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:05:00 AM EST

Originally Posted By jimb100:

Originally Posted By GBME:
It didn't take long for a Saddam apologist to show up, did it?


The Bush apologists are notably a bit slow.


Why don't you elaborate for us how President Bush compares to Saddam?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:06:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By NME:

Originally Posted By jimb100:


If you want to attack every country that competes with us economically, politically and militarily, you should be prepared to triple or quadruple the size of the military with a corresponding rise in taxes and start the body bag contract as soon as possible.


You can't be serious.



It's just a "competition" you evil war monger!

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:07:05 AM EST
On any given day Saddam Hussein would have said something like that so it's not meaningful that he made that statement just weeks before 9/11. Although many Americans believe in the connection between Iraq and 9/11 no connection has ever been proven. Saddam Hussein wouldn't have tolerated Al Qaeda in his country because Bin Laden wanted to be the one to evict the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:10:39 AM EST

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:


It's just a "competition" you evil war monger!



Oh snap!

I've become a war monger!@

I better immolate myself to show the world how peaceful I am!

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:12:03 AM EST
This is how I explain it to liberals and have yet to run into one that can make an augument against this.

A) What was the biggest reason OBL and Al Quaeda were pissed at the US?
Because we had troops in their holy land of Saudi Arabia.

B) Why did we have to keep troops in Saudi Arabia ?
Because Saddam was honoring allmost none of the terms of the ceasefire agreement of the Gulf war and couldnt be trusted to not reinvade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

Then I ask why Bill Clinton spend my time, money and resources to go after Bill Gates and Microsoft than OBL.

Usually by this point the liberal is allmost in tears
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:14:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By xm15-e2s:
On any given day Saddam Hussein would have said something like that so it's not meaningful that he made that statement just weeks before 9/11. Although many Americans believe in the connection between Iraq and 9/11 no connection has ever been proven. Saddam Hussein wouldn't have tolerated Al Qaeda in his country because Bin Laden wanted to be the one to evict the Iraqis out of Kuwait.



Good L-rd. Reading is fundamental:



Not saying he was culpable for, or had prior knowledge of, the attacks, just that he was clearly an enemy of the United States, and his actions indicated that he intended to do harm to the US and our interests in the region.



Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:15:30 AM EST

The 9/11 Commission Reports Cites Numerous Contacts Between Saddam and Al-Qaeda:


“There Is … Evidence That Around This Time [1997] Bin Ladin Sent Out A Number Of Feelers To The Iraqi Regime, Offering Some Cooperation.” (“Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States,” The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)


“In Mid-1998, The Situation Reversed; It Was Iraq That Reportedly Took The Initiative.” (“Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States,” The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)


“In March 1998, After Bin Ladin’s Public Fatwa Against The United States, Two Al Qaeda Members Reportedly Went To Iraq To Meet With Iraqi Intelligence.” (“Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States,” The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)

“In July, An Iraqi Delegation Traveled To Afghanistan To Meet First With The Taliban And Then With Bin Ladin.” (“Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States,” The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)

“Sources Reported That One, Or Perhaps Both, Of These Meetings Was Apparently Arranged Through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian Deputy, Zawahiri, Who Had Ties Of His Own To The Iraqis.” (“Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States,” The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)

“According To The Reporting, Iraqi Officials Offered Bin Ladin A Safe Haven In Iraq.” (“Final Report Of The National Commission On Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States,” The 9/11 Commission Report, 7/22/04)

Kean: “There Were Contacts Between Iraq And Al-Qaida, A Number Of Them, Some Of Them A Little Shadowy. They Were Definitely There.” (Editorial, Nancy Pelosi,” Investor’s Business Daily, 7/5/05)

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:20:51 AM EST

December 16, 1998

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.

The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.

"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.

"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.

"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.


'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'

The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.

"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.

The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.

Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.

"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.

"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.


Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs

Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.

Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.

"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."

Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.

Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.

"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.

"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:21:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By colklink:
This is how I explain it to liberals and have yet to run into one that can make an augument against this.

A) What was the biggest reason OBL and Al Quaeda were pissed at the US?
Because we had troops in their holy land of Saudi Arabia.

B) Why did we have to keep troops in Saudi Arabia ?
Because Saddam was honoring allmost none of the terms of the ceasefire agreement of the Gulf war and couldnt be trusted to not reinvade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

Then I ask why Bill Clinton spend my time, money and resources to go after Bill Gates and Microsoft than OBL.

Usually by this point the liberal is allmost in tears



Some might argue, especially the neocons, that we had to remain in Saudi Arabia because we didn't remove Saddam Hussein or neuter him enough when we had the opportunity.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:27:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By xm15-e2s:

Originally Posted By colklink:
This is how I explain it to liberals and have yet to run into one that can make an augument against this.

A) What was the biggest reason OBL and Al Quaeda were pissed at the US?
Because we had troops in their holy land of Saudi Arabia.

B) Why did we have to keep troops in Saudi Arabia ?
Because Saddam was honoring allmost none of the terms of the ceasefire agreement of the Gulf war and couldnt be trusted to not reinvade Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

Then I ask why Bill Clinton spend my time, money and resources to go after Bill Gates and Microsoft than OBL.

Usually by this point the liberal is allmost in tears



Some might argue, especially the neocons, that we had to remain in Saudi Arabia because we didn't remove Saddam Hussein or neuter him enough when we had the opportunity.


Ahh, those evil "neo-cons!"

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:27:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By NME:
Liberals look at that today and probably see a common goal.






yep

fred
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:29:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By xm15-e2s:

Some might argue, especially the neocons, that we had to remain in Saudi Arabia because we didn't remove Saddam Hussein or neuter him enough when we had the opportunity.


So it's our fault bad guys like Saddam and Usama don't like us?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:30:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By xm15-e2s:
On any given day Saddam Hussein would have said something like that so it's not meaningful that he made that statement just weeks before 9/11. Although many Americans believe in the connection between Iraq and 9/11 no connection has ever been proven. Saddam Hussein wouldn't have tolerated Al Qaeda in his country because Bin Laden wanted to be the one to evict the Iraqis out of Kuwait.



Good L-rd. Reading is fundamental:



Not saying he was culpable for, or had prior knowledge of, the attacks, just that he was clearly an enemy of the United States, and his actions indicated that he intended to do harm to the US and our interests in the region.






I know but you're implying the first point. This is basically what the administration did on the lead up to the war. They implied a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, leaving the impression there was one, but when challenged they denied they ever explicitly made the connection.

They successfully implanted the idea in the minds of Americans even though there was no proof. Even most US troops in Iraq believe there is a connection even though there's no proof and the current adminstration would say there's no proof.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:34:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By NME:

Originally Posted By xm15-e2s:

Some might argue, especially the neocons, that we had to remain in Saudi Arabia because we didn't remove Saddam Hussein or neuter him enough when we had the opportunity.


So it's our fault bad guys like Saddam and Usama don't like us?



Saddam didn't like us because we invaded his country, silly.

Bin Laden didn't like us because he didn't like us. If we weren't defiling their soil he would have found some other excuse to dislike us.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:43:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/4/2007 4:37:50 PM EST by CitySlicker]

Originally Posted By xm15-e2s:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By xm15-e2s:
On any given day Saddam Hussein would have said something like that so it's not meaningful that he made that statement just weeks before 9/11. Although many Americans believe in the connection between Iraq and 9/11 no connection has ever been proven. Saddam Hussein wouldn't have tolerated Al Qaeda in his country because Bin Laden wanted to be the one to evict the Iraqis out of Kuwait.



Good L-rd. Reading is fundamental:



Not saying he was culpable for, or had prior knowledge of, the attacks, just that he was clearly an enemy of the United States, and his actions indicated that he intended to do harm to the US and our interests in the region.






I know but you're implying the first point. This is basically what the administration did on the lead up to the war. They implied a connection between 9/11 and Iraq, leaving the impression there was one, but when challenged they denied they ever explicitly made the connection.

They successfully implanted the idea in the minds of Americans even though there was no proof. Even most US troops in Iraq believe there is a connection even though there's no proof and the current adminstration would say there's no proof.


No, I'm not implying it at all. That's precisely why I added the disclaimer. You're reaching and you know it; come up with a stronger argument.

Furthermore, why is that you liberals are always the first to trumpet the 9/11 Commission Report whenever you feel it is in your favor, yet you're the first to discredit or ignore it when it's not? As GBME pointed out, your beloved 9/11 Commission Report seems to draw similar conclusions as the evil "administration."

Oh, and by the way, I love how you see it fit to point the finger at the evil Bush administration, when it was a joint session of Congress--including you dipshit liberals--that overwhelmingly approved the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. If you ever read the resolution--which you liberals invariably never have--you'll see that the joint session of Congress agreed with the allegations which you credit solely to the Bush administration:

  • Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"

  • Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations

  • Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

  • The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them

  • The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:44:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By xm15-e2s:

Originally Posted By NME:

Originally Posted By xm15-e2s:

Some might argue, especially the neocons, that we had to remain in Saudi Arabia because we didn't remove Saddam Hussein or neuter him enough when we had the opportunity.


So it's our fault bad guys like Saddam and Usama don't like us?



Saddam didn't like us because we invaded his country, silly.

Bin Laden didn't like us because he didn't like us. If we weren't defiling their soil he would have found some other excuse to dislike us.


So you agree with Usama bin OLaden that the US was "defiling his soil?"
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:49:11 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 6:59:22 AM EST
You know how a lot of you (including myself) dislike the JBT LEO folks?????.....Why do we dislike these types????.....I think its because they let the power go to their heads and in their mind, they are better than us civilians????....then they treat us like crminals at traffic stops when all we were doing was speeding........again, they think we are idiots and they should reign superior over us.......
Does this sound familiar??????.......Maybe thats why MOST of the world hates the U.S.......It seems to me we have taken this elitist, JBT attitude towards the world and now we are feeling the reprecussions.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:00:59 AM EST

Originally Posted By GhostCat:
You know how a lot of you (including myself) dislike the JBT LEO folks?????.....Why do we dislike these types????.....I think its because they let the power go to their heads and in their mind, they are better than us civilians????....then they treat us like crminals at traffic stops when all we were doing was speeding........again, they think we are idiots and they should reign superior over us.......
Does this sound familiar??????.......Maybe thats why MOST of the world hates the U.S.......It seems to me we have taken this elitist, JBT attitude towards the world and now we are feeling the reprecussions.



Right...

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:05:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By GhostCat:
You know how a lot of you (including myself) dislike the JBT LEO folks?????.....Why do we dislike these types????.....I think its because they let the power go to their heads and in their mind, they are better than us civilians????....then they treat us like crminals at traffic stops when all we were doing was speeding........again, they think we are idiots and they should reign superior over us.......
Does this sound familiar??????.......Maybe thats why MOST of the world hates the U.S.......It seems to me we have taken this elitist, JBT attitude towards the world and now we are feeling the reprecussions.



They hate us because they envy our place in the world.....the one and only superpower.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:06:49 AM EST
So there aren't any "conservatives" opposed to the war in Iraq?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:09:00 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 7:10:18 AM EST by GhostCat]

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

They hate us because they envy our place in the world.....the one and only superpower.


There is that elitist attitude I was talking about......I knew it wouldn't take long....


Originally Posted By ReelVirginian1861:
So there aren't any "conservatives" opposed to the war in Iraq?


I'm a Conservative and I'm against it......There's one for ya!!!
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:09:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By ReelVirginian1861:
So there aren't any "conservatives" opposed to the war in Iraq?


Sure.....the word conservative covers alot of ground. Hell I'm concertered a conservative by most of my friends.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:09:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By GhostCat:
You know how a lot of you (including myself) dislike the JBT LEO folks?????.....Why do we dislike these types????.....I think its because they let the power go to their heads and in their mind, they are better than us civilians????....then they treat us like crminals at traffic stops when all we were doing was speeding........again, they think we are idiots and they should reign superior over us.......
Does this sound familiar??????.......Maybe thats why MOST of the world hates the U.S.......It seems to me we have taken this elitist, JBT attitude towards the world and now we are feeling the reprecussions.



Right on, comrade! Don't worry though, Mother Russia will be strong again, and will put a stop to the imperialist Americans!
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:12:54 AM EST
Funny how liberals want to disarm their fellow Americans, their friends and neighbors, but they're fine with letting other countries develop WMDs. It's ok for middle eastern countries to have as many nukes as they want, we should mind our business and stay out of it. But God forbid the family down the street has an AR locked in the closet. That's what they fear, not an attack from violent enemies that pray for our death. They are afraid the family next door might suddenly go on a killing spree without precedent.

The danger is real, there are people that want to kill us. But they don't live next door, and they aren't going to use rifles, we should be so lucky. No, they are going to use WMD when they decide to finally bring it.

The libs ought to look to the sky for the objects of their fear, instead of throough the fence at the guy grilling hot dogs, or edging his lawn.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:13:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By GhostCat:

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

They hate us because they envy our place in the world.....the one and only superpower.


There is that elitist attitude I was talking about......I knew it wouldn't take long....


There is nothing elitist about it....it's human nature. The French where not crying about it when they had the superpower status. and when the Russian where the other big guy...everybody loved us.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:15:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
Right on, comrade! Don't worry though, Mother Russia will be strong again, and will put a stop to the imperialist Americans!


Your statement maybe more true than you think.......Do you know much about history????.....Throughout history, every elitist empire has been demolished in one form or another......If the U.S. keeps up with this attitude it'll just be a matter of time.
This is not something I want or hope for, its just the facts.....History repeates itself time and time again.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:18:47 AM EST
Every country wants to be the top dog.....personally I would rather it be us and not the Russians or Chinese.


Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:20:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By GhostCat:


There is that elitist attitude I was talking about......I knew it wouldn't take long....



Why do they hate Asians?

Why do they hate Africans?

Why do they hate Europeans?

Why do they hate Christians?

Why do they hate Jews?

And why does al-Qaida hate Muslims so much?

The majority of the people they've killed are Muslims...

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:20:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
Funny how liberals want to disarm their fellow Americans, their friends and neighbors, but they're fine with letting other countries develop WMDs.


Not sure if you were talking about me or not but I think I need to make something clear......I'm not a liberal and I LOVE ALL MY AR's/AK's/SKS's/etc...and I'll fight to the end to keep'em......I'm like you in that sense......Like I said earlier, I am a conservative who is against the war in Iraq.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:22:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By GhostCat:

Originally Posted By Bloencustoms:
Funny how liberals want to disarm their fellow Americans, their friends and neighbors, but they're fine with letting other countries develop WMDs.


Not sure if you were talking about me or not but I think I need to make something clear......I'm not a liberal and I LOVE ALL MY AR's/AK's/SKS's/etc...and I'll fight to the end to keep'em......I'm like you in that sense......Like I said earlier, I am a conservative who is against the war in Iraq.


No, I was not referring to you. I meant all the anti-war, anti-gun crowd.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 8:00:26 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 8:04:48 AM EST by CitySlicker]

Originally Posted By GhostCat:

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

They hate us because they envy our place in the world.....the one and only superpower.


There is that elitist attitude I was talking about......I knew it wouldn't take long....


OK, let's just ignore it even though it's true.

I spoke with a gentleman who immigrated to the United States around 20-25 years ago, from a small South American country known as Guyana. He confided to me that when he first approached the local embassy to inquire about emigrating from Guyana to the United States, they informed him that he would have to wait at least another two years before receiving an answer.

He then recounted how he returned home and, for two years, harbored an intense hatred for the United States. Why? You guessed it: because he couldn't come here. Upon revealing this last bit, everyone else present in the room (also immigrants from Guyana) echoed his sentiments. Believe it or not, America really is the greatest country in the world, and everyone else--if given the opportunity--really would come here.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 8:40:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By StonerStudent:

Originally Posted By GhostCat:
You know how a lot of you (including myself) dislike the JBT LEO folks?????.....Why do we dislike these types????.....I think its because they let the power go to their heads and in their mind, they are better than us civilians????....then they treat us like crminals at traffic stops when all we were doing was speeding........again, they think we are idiots and they should reign superior over us.......
Does this sound familiar??????.......Maybe thats why MOST of the world hates the U.S.......It seems to me we have taken this elitist, JBT attitude towards the world and now we are feeling the reprecussions.



They hate us because they envy our place in the world.....the one and only superpower.


frick them all. we got the bombs.
fred
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 11:43:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By ReelVirginian1861:
So there aren't any "conservatives" opposed to the war in Iraq?


Would you feel better if I used the term pacifist?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:46:18 PM EST

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By ReelVirginian1861:
So there aren't any "conservatives" opposed to the war in Iraq?


Would you feel better if I used the term pacifist?


pacifist= people running demorat party

fred
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:52:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 12:53:07 PM EST by NME]

Originally Posted By ReelVirginian1861:
So there aren't any "conservatives" opposed to the war in Iraq?


Any "conservative" that opposes fighting al-Qaida and their allies can hardly call himself a conservative.

In fact, I would question their loyalty as American citizens.

Just like I would do the same for anyone that opposes taking the fight to our enemies and let the Jihad reach our shores once more.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:57:04 PM EST

Originally Posted By NME:

Originally Posted By ReelVirginian1861:
So there aren't any "conservatives" opposed to the war in Iraq?


Any "conservative" that opposes fighting al-Qaida and their allies can hardly call himself a conservative.

In fact, I would question their loyalty as American citizens.

Just like I would do the same for anyone that opposes taking the fight to our enemies and let the Jihad reach our shores once more.


Actually I was thinking of Pat Buchannan but there's many many conservatives who oppose it for one reason or another. I would never question P.B.'s loyalty that's for sure.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:53:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By FredZiffle:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By ReelVirginian1861:
So there aren't any "conservatives" opposed to the war in Iraq?


Would you feel better if I used the term pacifist?


pacifist= people running demorat party

fred


Can't argue with that.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:00:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By ReelVirginian1861:
So there aren't any "conservatives" opposed to the war in Iraq?


I have serious doubts about how things are going
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 3:03:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Turnkey:

Originally Posted By ReelVirginian1861:
So there aren't any "conservatives" opposed to the war in Iraq?


I have serious doubts about how things are going



We gotta fight them somewhere, sometime...that's a for sure...so why not fight them there, on their land?????????????????? Oh if we leave them alone, they won't bother us? Ever hear of the WTC ????

fred
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 3:56:57 AM EST
I would support the war and believe in the threat of terrorism if we would CLOSE THE GOD DAMN BORDER!!!!

GWB must not be worried about terrorism, cause if he was worried about terrorism HE WOULD CLOSE THE GOD DAMN BORDER!


I can't believe in his sincerity until he does close the THE GOD DAMN BORDER!

Our men are dieing, we are squandering billions, and terrorists can still walk right across the God damn border
Link Posted: 2/25/2007 4:55:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By inkaybee:
I would support the war and believe in the threat of terrorism if we would CLOSE THE GOD DAMN BORDER!!!!

GWB must not be worried about terrorism, cause if he was worried about terrorism HE WOULD CLOSE THE GOD DAMN BORDER!


I can't believe in his sincerity until he does close the THE GOD DAMN BORDER!

Our men are dieing, we are squandering billions, and terrorists can still walk right across the God damn border


So , I take it you want the border closed..maybe Queen Pelosi and company will close it.

fred
Top Top