Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Have a good day and please the next time you run across a marine make sure you tell him how you feel about his performance in Iraq
PLEASE
C'mon JRK
The Marines did a great job. They died following orders of a reckless commander and chief - who didn't care enough about their lives to prepare for the post-Saddam chaos.
Here is what scares me about your logic. (Try the following example)
Let's say that somebody makes the reckless, irresponsible decision to build a house in a flood zone. So they hire workers and build the house. The workers do an incredible job.
But there's a flood which destroys the house.
Whose fault is it?
It's the person who decided to build the house! The workers were merely following orders. They did their job and they did it well! The incompetence was at the level of policy.
Please sir, don't try to protect Bush by holding up the sacrifices of the troops. Nobody questions their sacrifices. We question their Washington Leaders.
(Wow. Why do Republicans trust Washington so much. Why would you ever think they were competent enough to rebuild an Arab nation? Why do Republicans always trust dead leader to do Big Things?)
(Listen to Ron Paul. We can no longer afford Big Government Conservatism and the War on Terrorism, which spends trillions going after petty dictators. Yes, we would all love to end evil in the world. We would all love for the Arab world to have freedom and democracy. But some of us don't want to give Washington vastly expanded powers and budgets to achieve this? We just don't have your faith in Big Government)
Have a good day and please the next time you run across a marine make sure you tell him how you feel about his performance in Iraq
PLEASE
C'mon JRK
The Marines did a great job. They died following orders of a reckless commander and chief - who didn't care enough about their lives to prepare for the post-Saddam chaos.
Here is what scares me about your logic. (Try the following example)
Let's say that somebody makes the reckless, irresponsible decision to build a house in a flood zone. So they hire workers and build the house. The workers do an incredible job.
But there's a flood which destroys the house.
Whose fault is it?
It's the person who decided to build the house! The workers were merely following orders. They did their job and they did it well! The incompetence was at the level of policy.
Please sir, don't try to protect Bush by holding up the sacrifices of the troops. Nobody questions their sacrifices. We question their Washington Leaders.
(Wow. Why do Republicans trust Washington so much. Why would you ever think they were competent enough to rebuild an Arab nation? Why do Republicans always trust dead leader to do Big Things?)
(Listen to Ron Paul. We can no longer afford Big Government Conservatism and the War on Terrorism, which spends trillions going after petty dictators. Yes, we would all love to end evil in the world. We would all love for the Arab world to have freedom and democracy. But some of us don't want to give Washington vastly expanded powers and budgets to achieve this? We just don't have your faith in Big Government)
protect GWB?
who will protect the dems in congress that voted for it?
How about BHO?
This is has never been about GWB, me, or anyone but the troops
Every reason you have given why they should not have joined and fought, I have given you a reason to support there choice
you chose to ignore that and fight against every reason they had to be there
I am going to tell the same thing I have told every other person who thinks this is a game
Good Luck with who and what you are
Look Libs
Those of you who feel this war in Iraq was a failure
your wasting your breath with me
To start with I hate violence, in addition I am as glad as anyone its over
we did what we set out to do and that's as simple as it gets
its over
now you got a problem with that take it up with those who chose to go over there so you could sit your sorry asses behind your key board and make up reasons they should not have went
take it up with them, not me any more, because that's who I have been defending
they deserve a heroes welcome, not come home to this BS
So each one of you who thinks this has been a joke, take it up with the US marine corp. Its there victory your thrashing
NOT MINE
Boy, what a confused post.
Are you saying that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda?
The cost of the war is advertised that its all about Iraq
we stopped fighting true Iraqi troops within weeks of invading
Saddam it has been stated had nothing to do with 9-11, there is no proof of that he did and I agree based on what info there is that he had no part in 9-11
but
It is not as clear as to his ties to Al Qaeda, in fact
Archived-Articles: More Evidence of Saddam-al Qaeda Ties
An al Qaeda document newly released by the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) of the United States Military Academy provides an extraordinary new connection to a previously reported order by Saddam Hussein to support al Qaeda attacks upon US forces in Somalia. It corresponds with other documents that show Saddam Hussein was using Islamic terrorists as proxies to attack US interests. The document was part of a US Army report on al Qaeda in Africa. That study contends that although al Qaeda managed to train other Islamic fighters in Africa, it did the organization no long term good, as it failed to bend the region to al Qaeda doctrine.
More Doccuments reveal Saddam & Al Qaeda ties « Morning Coffee
It also lost in these discussions that without Al Qaeda in Iraq the cost of the war both in people and dollars would have been a fraction
Why would the Iraqis fight us after Saddam cut and run?
Also please note no-one ever mentions the savings in dollars that the closing of bases in Saudi, Kuwait as well as funding for the UN in what ever it was they were suppose to be doing
So the invasion was for the purpose of saving money?
Do you think it was successful by that measure?
The cost of the war is advertised that its all about Iraq
we stopped fighting true Iraqi troops within weeks of invading
Saddam it has been stated had nothing to do with 9-11, there is no proof of that he did and I agree based on what info there is that he had no part in 9-11
but
It is not as clear as to his ties to Al Qaeda, in fact
Archived-Articles: More Evidence of Saddam-al Qaeda Ties
An al Qaeda document newly released by the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) of the United States Military Academy provides an extraordinary new connection to a previously reported order by Saddam Hussein to support al Qaeda attacks upon US forces in Somalia. It corresponds with other documents that show Saddam Hussein was using Islamic terrorists as proxies to attack US interests. The document was part of a US Army report on al Qaeda in Africa. That study contends that although al Qaeda managed to train other Islamic fighters in Africa, it did the organization no long term good, as it failed to bend the region to al Qaeda doctrine.
More Doccuments reveal Saddam & Al Qaeda ties « Morning Coffee
It also lost in these discussions that without Al Qaeda in Iraq the cost of the war both in people and dollars would have been a fraction
Why would the Iraqis fight us after Saddam cut and run?
Also please note no-one ever mentions the savings in dollars that the closing of bases in Saudi, Kuwait as well as funding for the UN in what ever it was they were suppose to be doing
So the invasion was for the purpose of saving money?
Do you think it was successful by that measure?
THe purpose of the invasion was to solve the 12 awful years of killing Iraqis daily and bombing the country when containment was no longer an option -- or even valid..
If there were no WMDs and no imminent threats from Saddam --- the reality was we had no legal basis to "contain him" anymore either. No legal option to contain him means that SOMEONE had to make the decision to let him OUT of containment or to remove him..
Did YOU make that call IDB? Did you weigh the options and convince your elected officials to normalize relations with that country and their shotgun toting leader?
I DID.. Until 9.11. Then I changed my mind.
Both the left and right partisians have lost ALL objectivity about the decision to take him down. Because of terrible foreign policy for 12 years which was ALSO based on the same lies used for the invasion -- we had only 2 choices..
Am I missing something here? Or are you guys? Anyone out still prefer that 100s of thousands of Iraqis were starving and dying from lack of supplies because of OUR ACTIONS? Bombing them daily and locking down their borders with bases in Saudi and a couple carrier groups in the Gulf?
TO ALL of you feuding over this for 20 pages now.. PICK ONE.
1) Go along with the EU and most allies and say "sorry for the 12 years of deaths and bombings --- here's your country back Saddam"..
2) Remove Saddam and institute a reformed govt.
3) XXXXX -- place any other options I might have missed HERE.
General David Patreus "We will never win the Iraq War. Only the Iraqis can win this war"
Same with Afghanistan.
Amazing how LITTLE OR NOTHING folks know about the Bush doctrine which is what Obama has continued.
The strategy has never been to win any of those wars.
General David Patreus "We will never win the Iraq War. Only the Iraqis can win this war"
Same with Afghanistan.
Amazing how LITTLE OR NOTHING folks know about the Bush doctrine which is what Obama has continued.
The strategy has never been to win any of those wars.
By allowing those people the chance, is it not what our mission was?
By that does it not make it a success?
I have been saying that in 100 different ways
I agree,
thank you
The cost of the war is advertised that its all about Iraq
we stopped fighting true Iraqi troops within weeks of invading
Saddam it has been stated had nothing to do with 9-11, there is no proof of that he did and I agree based on what info there is that he had no part in 9-11
but
It is not as clear as to his ties to Al Qaeda, in fact
Archived-Articles: More Evidence of Saddam-al Qaeda Ties
An al Qaeda document newly released by the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) of the United States Military Academy provides an extraordinary new connection to a previously reported order by Saddam Hussein to support al Qaeda attacks upon US forces in Somalia. It corresponds with other documents that show Saddam Hussein was using Islamic terrorists as proxies to attack US interests. The document was part of a US Army report on al Qaeda in Africa. That study contends that although al Qaeda managed to train other Islamic fighters in Africa, it did the organization no long term good, as it failed to bend the region to al Qaeda doctrine.
More Doccuments reveal Saddam & Al Qaeda ties « Morning Coffee
It also lost in these discussions that without Al Qaeda in Iraq the cost of the war both in people and dollars would have been a fraction
Why would the Iraqis fight us after Saddam cut and run?
Also please note no-one ever mentions the savings in dollars that the closing of bases in Saudi, Kuwait as well as funding for the UN in what ever it was they were suppose to be doing
So the invasion was for the purpose of saving money?
Do you think it was successful by that measure?
THe purpose of the invasion was to solve the 12 awful years of killing Iraqis daily and bombing the country when containment was no longer an option -- or even valid..
If there were no WMDs and no imminent threats from Saddam --- the reality was we had no legal basis to "contain him" anymore either. No legal option to contain him means that SOMEONE had to make the decision to let him OUT of containment or to remove him..
Did YOU make that call IDB? Did you weigh the options and convince your elected officials to normalize relations with that country and their shotgun toting leader?
I DID.. Until 9.11. Then I changed my mind.
Both the left and right partisians have lost ALL objectivity about the decision to take him down. Because of terrible foreign policy for 12 years which was ALSO based on the same lies used for the invasion -- we had only 2 choices..
Am I missing something here? Or are you guys? Anyone out still prefer that 100s of thousands of Iraqis were starving and dying from lack of supplies because of OUR ACTIONS? Bombing them daily and locking down their borders with bases in Saudi and a couple carrier groups in the Gulf?
TO ALL of you feuding over this for 20 pages now.. PICK ONE.
1) Go along with the EU and most allies and say "sorry for the 12 years of deaths and bombings --- here's your country back Saddam"..
2) Remove Saddam and institute a reformed govt.
3) XXXXX -- place any other options I might have missed HERE.
So the invasion was for the purpose of saving money?
Do you think it was successful by that measure?
THe purpose of the invasion was to solve the 12 awful years of killing Iraqis daily and bombing the country when containment was no longer an option -- or even valid..
If there were no WMDs and no imminent threats from Saddam --- the reality was we had no legal basis to "contain him" anymore either. No legal option to contain him means that SOMEONE had to make the decision to let him OUT of containment or to remove him..
Did YOU make that call IDB? Did you weigh the options and convince your elected officials to normalize relations with that country and their shotgun toting leader?
I DID.. Until 9.11. Then I changed my mind.
Both the left and right partisians have lost ALL objectivity about the decision to take him down. Because of terrible foreign policy for 12 years which was ALSO based on the same lies used for the invasion -- we had only 2 choices..
Am I missing something here? Or are you guys? Anyone out still prefer that 100s of thousands of Iraqis were starving and dying from lack of supplies because of OUR ACTIONS? Bombing them daily and locking down their borders with bases in Saudi and a couple carrier groups in the Gulf?
TO ALL of you feuding over this for 20 pages now.. PICK ONE.
1) Go along with the EU and most allies and say "sorry for the 12 years of deaths and bombings --- here's your country back Saddam"..
2) Remove Saddam and institute a reformed govt.
3) XXXXX -- place any other options I might have missed HERE.
So...why the lies from the administration about the reasons to invade?
Why not make it a humanitarian mission - they must have known that their bullshit would be exposed?
Why not just target Hussein himself instead of bombing the shit out of the country and rolling over conscripts that didn't want to be there and firing off radioactive armaments to poison the countryside?
It was a big exciting adventurous flexing of muscles by warmongers in Washington.
The public went along with it because the first war was so easy and they missed the tv spectacle.
General David Patreus "We will never win the Iraq War. Only the Iraqis can win this war"
Same with Afghanistan.
Amazing how LITTLE OR NOTHING folks know about the Bush doctrine which is what Obama has continued.
The strategy has never been to win any of those wars.
By allowing those people the chance, is it not what our mission was?
By that does it not make it a success?
I have been saying that in 100 different ways
I agree,
thank you
You've been flopping about like a landed fish JRK, I've hardly read a consistent, coherent argument from you.
It is not about our winning anyway, he is about Iraqis and Iraq? Had nothing to do with 9-11 or terrorism. .
So...why the lies from the administration about the reasons to invade?.
60 million human lives are always of vital interest to the US. One might also consider the incredible cost of the Cold War and the generations of Americans who lived under the specter of imminent destruction.
Then why haven't we been militarily involved throughout Africa for the past 10, 20, 30 you-name-it number of years?
Do you want some death tolls cited from the neverending conflicts that have gone on there?
Was it in the vital national interests of the United States to try to stop the conflict in the Congo for the last couple decades? How many millions have died there?
Are you under the impression that every situation is the same, and that every situation suggests the same response? Are you really that thick-headed?
[
That's a liberal myth that we tried to change those people's culture
We went there to rid the world of Saddam
take control of the weapons he had including the yellow cake that was there
fight the Al Queida that was there, and bringing them to room temp
forming a republic
BUt that wasn't our legal justificiation. Our justification was to get rid of WMD's that weren't actually there. He didn't have weapons of mass destruction.
The end result was that we've tried to impose modern forms of government on people who have no use for them.
What we should be doing is establishing energy independence.
Another liberal myth
all though the stock piles the UN stated Saddam had were never found
There was over 500 illegal munitions found that meet the criteria of a WMD
there fore the war was a legal war
It can also be said the 550 metric tons of yellow cake sold to Canada in 2008 was sufficient to make the war legal
it is sort of a double whammy
There is no grey area here
The war as congress mandated it was legal, this was decided in the courts before we invaded
Then why haven't we been militarily involved throughout Africa for the past 10, 20, 30 you-name-it number of years?
Do you want some death tolls cited from the neverending conflicts that have gone on there?
Was it in the vital national interests of the United States to try to stop the conflict in the Congo for the last couple decades? How many millions have died there?
Are you under the impression that every situation is the same, and that every situation suggests the same response? Are you really that thick-headed?
You're the one who proclaimed that millions dying in a foreign country were a vital national interest of the US, sufficient to warrant our intervening militarily to try to prevent it.
I have realized that the liberals are going to do what ever it takes to taint the great victory in Iraq
Does anyone realize that war is over and it looks like we will be 100% gone in 6 months?
That there is a republic in place?
and that women vote and hold office?
I had no idea that the liberal media and there cock suckers would go to the level they have to make the troops look bad and make the success they fought hard for look like, well ask Drock and that crew
I dont even know how to explain it
DOES ANYBODY CARE WE WON?
