So now, BUSH caused ISIS?

[Faun]

Boss 11517170

Where are the WMDs? Well it turns out they were in Syria, where Saddam's WMD technology is currently being deployed. Actual chem/bio weapons have short shelf life, but the technology is what was important and it all went to Syria.

If the "technology" went to Syria and "technology" is the important threat that needed to be eliminated by a massive military invasion in March 2003 into Iraq, why did Bush invade Iraq instead of Syria?

Then why did Bush tell us on March 17, 2003 that he had intelligence that left no doubt that Iraq was hiding the most lethal weapons ever devised from the 2003 UN inspectors, if it was only technology that Bush was looking for.

According to the nutty right, Bush invaded the wrong country.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Again... Bush was actually following the 1998 plan established by congress and signed by Clinton, to replace Saddam with democracy.

The 1998 plan was never about a full scale invasion of 200,000 U.S. Troops to search for WMD that might be there. It was to support and arm Iraqi opposition. Bush gets credit for the massive invasion idea. It was a dumb idea as Obama said.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Sarin Gas which Hussein used to kill over one million Kurds is now NOT on Joe's list of WMD's?....
Newsflash.....ALL chemical and biological weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction. ALL of them....Oh..WMD's with Iraqi markings are being uncovered in Syria..
So now you're a Saddam Hussein sympathizer?

Guy, a couple of things.

First, the number of Kurds wped out in Operation Anfal was closer to 50- 100 thousand.

And when this was done, the United States government actually SUPPORTED Saddam's actions. The Kurds in that region had allied to the Iranians when it was our policy to support Saddam's war with Iran.

More to the point, of those maybe 50K Kurds killed in a legitimate military action, the vast majority were in fact killed by conventional weapons - bombing and bullets. There was only one major attack with Chemical weapons on the city of Halajba.

The thing was, the Chemical attacks weren't very effective. While Chemical Weapons scare the shit out of people, they really don't do that much damage. Halajba inflicted maybe 5000 fatalities, but there were conventional bombings as well as the chemical ones in that total.

Final point- Most of Saddams chemical stockpiles were destroyed after 1991. Most of the ones that weren't were buried and chemical weapons lose their potency with time.

So, no, your statement that somehow, his chemical weapons were on par with the nukes and anthrax that Bush and Rummy and Condi were babbling about is laughable on its face. We did not go to war over the Cutting Edge Weapon of 1914.

Right.....Once again you live in your own reality

 

[thereisnospoon]

The Arabs have a stranglehold on the oil market?.....Ahh boy...
The uninformed sound off again....Jeez.
Which awful environmental consequences?
Accidents happen....Do you drive a car? Ever been in a swimming pool? Use a toaster? been caught in a thunderstorm?
If risk averse people like you ran the country we'd be living in hovels......eating stone soup

As opposed to stupid people like you, who happily send poor kids off to die for rich people.

Seriously. Fuck you.

HA!!!
I win!.....
Seriously.....
I asked you questions.....You FAILED.

Oh, were those questions? Because I thought you were just displaying your ignorance again.

Seriously..... You FAIL...Again....

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Boss 11602760

Your revisionist account of what went down is not impressing me because I was there, I remember exactly what went down. Bush gave an extensive list of reasons for the war which included WMD technology and potential weapons caches we didn't know about. Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector for the UNs UNSCOM effort had already given his statement that it was virtually impossible for the inspectors to ensure Saddam's compliance with UN resolutions. So Bush's argument for the war was WAY more than just WMDs and the argument was presented at the time... you just weren't listening to it. Your political cabal latched onto "WMDs" and that's all you heard.

What history did I revise? You refuse to bring specifics. You were where? Blix never said that? Blix was in favor of continuing inspection and was in the process of setting up long term monitoring. If you think Blix said that - provide a quote in writing.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You're the "stupid people" as you've clearly demonstrated here. First of all, we don't round up poor kids and put them in the Army to go fight wars for rich people. That's apparently something that happens in the Liberal Utopian Universe and not the normal one. In the normal universe, young men and women VOLUNTEER to serve their country and they are aware that this may involve deployment where their lives may be at risk and people may shoot at them. Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution.

You are a textbook example of someone who has been brainwashed by propaganda. I honestly don't know if there is a way to deprogram you at this point, I am hoping we can avoid having to put you down like a rabid dog.

Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. You have no idea what you're talking about and are quite obviously ignorant about what powers the Constitution does grant. The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military.

Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war.

Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!

Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war.

That is the role of the president.

Congress can only declare war and fund the military.

And guess what -- even if Congress declares war, the president is under no Constitutional obligation to send even a single troop to fight in said declared war. Do you even realize if that were to happen, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to send any troops to war.

You are truly mind-numbingly senile. Though, I do appreciate you demonstrating that since that sheds a bright light on much of the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing.

Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.

And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC could order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that could happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one.

Now it's time to see if you're a man of character or the piece of shit I suspect you to be ....

You said: "Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution."

I replied: "Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. .... The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military."

You shot back: "Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!"

I pointed out: "Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war. That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military."​

You then pulled out your pocket Constitution which agreed with me, not you. The Constitution says what I claim it says ... Congress declares war and funds the military. The president sends troops to war, not the Congress.

So let's see if you're man enough to admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, just as I said.......

"That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military."
Hair splitting at its worst..
You merely pointed out a distinction without a difference..
Genius...
The process as written works this way..
The President makes a decision to utilize military force. The President then must make a request to the Congress to authorize. Congress has the final say.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is not a rhetorical question. Would really appreciate an answer. If you had 5 next door neighbors who have threatened your family, and suddenly they all start to kill each other What would YOU do?

I know that I would feed them, patch up their wounds, and send them back next door to finish the job. Zionists are not as stupid as the leaders we elect in this country...,,,

What I would do is move the fuck out of that neighborhood. Today. I would have done that the first time those five neighbors threatened to kill my family. In fact, I never would have moved into that neighborhood to start with.

What I wouldn't do is patch up the neighbor who is clearly mentally disturbed (ISIL) in order to get the neighbor who just talks smack.

The Zionists are far stupider than our leaders. The Zionists choose to live amongst people who want to kill them because a magic fairy in the sky promised them that land.

That's because you have no honor. No code. No guts.....
I suppose you'd walk away from your own home in the same instance.
Just admit that you hate Jews and get it over with.
For once in your little insignificant existence on this rock, show some honesty

 

[Faun]

Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. You have no idea what you're talking about and are quite obviously ignorant about what powers the Constitution does grant. The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military.

Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war.

Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!

Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war.

That is the role of the president.

Congress can only declare war and fund the military.

And guess what -- even if Congress declares war, the president is under no Constitutional obligation to send even a single troop to fight in said declared war. Do you even realize if that were to happen, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to send any troops to war.

You are truly mind-numbingly senile. Though, I do appreciate you demonstrating that since that sheds a bright light on much of the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing.

Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.

And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC could order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that could happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one.

Now it's time to see if you're a man of character or the piece of shit I suspect you to be ....

You said: "Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution."

I replied: "Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. .... The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military."

You shot back: "Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!"

I pointed out: "Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war. That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military."​

You then pulled out your pocket Constitution which agreed with me, not you. The Constitution says what I claim it says ... Congress declares war and funds the military. The president sends troops to war, not the Congress.

So let's see if you're man enough to admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, just as I said.......

"That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military."
Hair splitting at its worst..
You merely pointed out a distinction without a difference..
Genius...
The process as written works this way..
The President makes a decision to utilize military force. The President then must make a request to the Congress to authorize. Congress has the final say.

Tell that to the moron who calls himself, 'boss.' He's under the delusion that Congress can send troops into war.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Darkw 11595161

The only false claims being made about Iraq come from the radicalized left. They feel compelled to lie about events and assign motives to people to justify their cowardice.

I challenged a specific claim you just made about what Bush supposedly predicted about Iraq. You have provided no specific false claim from the so called radical left. Do you have a person in mind and a false claim about Iraq that is a bit more specific than the rubbish you just tossed out.

But if you can't even attempt to defend what you claimed Bush43 predicted then we all left right and center can see that you certainly must know that what you wrote cannot be verified with an actual quote.

That means in this forum you are the one who put up a false claim, so according to your recent claim yo must be representing the radical left.

Why not just admit you were wrong?

And why did you avoid my question about Bush wanting Tony Blair to invade Iraq with him?

I'm getting tired of responding to this because noobs lack the necessary intelligence to search the forum or Internet for the information they seek.

Bush warned of ISIS in a speech in 2007. Without doubt, this information was given to our Cut and Run President Obama. So, for the nth time...



As I said. I'm tired of debating people who have already lost the argument but refuse to give up out of some kind of warped need to argue for arguments sake.

George W. Stupid didn't say anything about ISIL there.

ISIS......ISIL is what The Chosen OPne has decided to call those terrorist pussy fucks.
Why do you like them so much?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war.

Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!

Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war.

That is the role of the president.

Congress can only declare war and fund the military.

And guess what -- even if Congress declares war, the president is under no Constitutional obligation to send even a single troop to fight in said declared war. Do you even realize if that were to happen, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to send any troops to war.

You are truly mind-numbingly senile. Though, I do appreciate you demonstrating that since that sheds a bright light on much of the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing.

Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.

And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC could order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that could happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one.

Now it's time to see if you're a man of character or the piece of shit I suspect you to be ....

You said: "Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution."

I replied: "Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. .... The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military."

You shot back: "Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!"

I pointed out: "Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war. That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military."​

You then pulled out your pocket Constitution which agreed with me, not you. The Constitution says what I claim it says ... Congress declares war and funds the military. The president sends troops to war, not the Congress.

So let's see if you're man enough to admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, just as I said.......

"That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military."
Hair splitting at its worst..
You merely pointed out a distinction without a difference..
Genius...
The process as written works this way..
The President makes a decision to utilize military force. The President then must make a request to the Congress to authorize. Congress has the final say.

Tell that to the moron who calls himself, 'boss.' He's under the delusion that Congress can send troops into war.

YOU tell the OP.....because you are WRONG...

 

[Faun]

Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war.

That is the role of the president.

Congress can only declare war and fund the military.

And guess what -- even if Congress declares war, the president is under no Constitutional obligation to send even a single troop to fight in said declared war. Do you even realize if that were to happen, the Congress has no Constitutional authority to send any troops to war.

You are truly mind-numbingly senile. Though, I do appreciate you demonstrating that since that sheds a bright light on much of the rest of the nonsense you've been spewing.

Well it's in two parts-- Article II Section 2:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states.

And Article I Section 8:
[The Congress shall have power}
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, ;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

It does not take a Constitutional scholar to see the president doesn't have the authority to "send troops to war" without express consent from Congress. It takes TWO keys to start the war machine. Now... technically, I suppose the president acting as CinC could order the military to go invade Switzerland and confiscate all their chocolate for Michelle... then just obfuscate, spin, lie and manipulate as long as possible while constitutional lawyers had cows... that could happen.. most likely in the liberal Utopian universe and not the normal one.

Now it's time to see if you're a man of character or the piece of shit I suspect you to be ....

You said: "Secondly, voters don't send anyone to war... Congress does that, and only Congress has that authority according to the Constitution."

I replied: "Congress has absolutely no Authority to send troops to war. .... The president is the designated the "Commander-in-Chief" of the non-militia federal armed forces, establishing him/her as the decider to send troops into war. Congress's role is to declare war and fund the military."

You shot back: "Nominated for dumbest thing a liberal has said so far today! Go read your fucking Constitution again, bucko!"

I pointed out: "Ok, I looked again. Nowhere in the Constitution does it authorize Congress to send troops to war. That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military."​

You then pulled out your pocket Constitution which agreed with me, not you. The Constitution says what I claim it says ... Congress declares war and funds the military. The president sends troops to war, not the Congress.

So let's see if you're man enough to admit you have no fucking clue what you're talking about, just as I said.......

"That is the role of the president. Congress can only declare war and fund the military."
Hair splitting at its worst..
You merely pointed out a distinction without a difference..
Genius...
The process as written works this way..
The President makes a decision to utilize military force. The President then must make a request to the Congress to authorize. Congress has the final say.

Tell that to the moron who calls himself, 'boss.' He's under the delusion that Congress can send troops into war.

YOU tell the OP.....because you are WRONG...

WTF? You too think Congress can send troops into war? Show me where the Constitution authorizes that......

 

[Faun]

 

[flacaltenn]

This is not a rhetorical question. Would really appreciate an answer. If you had 5 next door neighbors who have threatened your family, and suddenly they all start to kill each other What would YOU do?

I know that I would feed them, patch up their wounds, and send them back next door to finish the job. Zionists are not as stupid as the leaders we elect in this country...,,,

What I would do is move the fuck out of that neighborhood. Today. I would have done that the first time those five neighbors threatened to kill my family. In fact, I never would have moved into that neighborhood to start with.

What I wouldn't do is patch up the neighbor who is clearly mentally disturbed (ISIL) in order to get the neighbor who just talks smack.

The Zionists are far stupider than our leaders. The Zionists choose to live amongst people who want to kill them because a magic fairy in the sky promised them that land.

That's because you have no honor. No code. No guts.....
I suppose you'd walk away from your own home in the same instance.
Just admit that you hate Jews and get it over with.
For once in your little insignificant existence on this rock, show some honesty

so is it that he actually HATES jews. Or does he just use them to plaster over the failures and inconsistencies
of his own political clan.? Curious people want to know....

 

[JoeB131]

The 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act is a United States Congressional statement of policy calling for regime change in Iraq.[1][2] It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, and states that it is the policy of the United States to support democratic movements within Iraq. The Act was cited in October 2002 to argue for the authorization of military force against the Iraqi government.

So clearly, this is official and legal US Foreign Policy on Iraq from 1998. The notion that Bush wanted Saddam removed to avenge Daddy are factually inaccurate. In other words, that is a LIE. It was already policy to remove Saddam. Also, the argument that Bush fucked up by removing a stable government under Saddam and attempting democracy is also factually inaccurate (aka: A Lie!) Again, it was official US Foreign Policy since 1998 to replace Saddam's regime with Democracy.

It was the policy to remove Saddam ONLY if his own people rose up against him, which they weren't.

Point is, we didn't go to war with Saddam to replace him, we went to war because he supposedly had WMD's he was going to give to Al Qaeda.

IN short. Bush Lied. People Died.

 

[JoeB131]

So the entire history of land and who owns it began in 1948?

The land "rightfully belongs" to the Jewish people who lived their over 3,000 years ago. "Sky Fairy Promises" or not, they have vehemently defended their homeland time and time again. Since no one alive today is 3,000 years old, no one has any legitimate claim to the land other than the Jews. Now, it has been forcibly taken away from them by the Romans, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Ottomans, the Germans... you name it. But it has always been their land and will always be their land.

Whenever you see someone use the word "Zionist" you can pretty much rest assured they are a Jew-hater.

Uh, no, guy. By that logic, you all need to leave and give the land back to me and my Cherokee relatives.

The people who lived their 3000 years ago aren't the same as the Europeans who moved there 70 years ago, just because their religion evolved from that region. Christians and Muslims would have an equally good claim, by that logic, and they were there before the European Jews started showing up.

Now, here was the thing. Zionism started as a "Let's throw the Jews out of Europe" movement, and no one was talking about Palestine. They were talking about Uganda and Madagascar and Siberia. and when the British first took over Palestine, no one was that keen to move there until AFTER World War II.

"A land without a people for a people without a land." is a lie. THere were people on that land, and they had a better claim to it.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, didn't notice this fool was still talking.

Sunni's are fucking Muslims, that's what Sunni IS... a sect of Islam. They are radicalized Muslims, no different than the scum who flew planes into our buildings on 9/11. They all want the same thing. They "didn't want to play" from the get-go, bud... they are AT WAR with us!

Yes, they all want the same thing. Unbelievers out of their country. What radicalized them was the fact we've been at war with them for 25 years.

As for the government in Iraq, no one ever thought establishing a stable democracy would be trouble-free. These people have never known democracy before. Of course they are going to have some problems, they will need some time to find their sea legs, we went through the very same thing in the beginning. These things take time and patience to see them through. That's something you and Obama, along with most of the left, simply have never had because you haven't wanted this from the start... just like the radical terrorists.

But that's NOT what Bush and company said. Bush said it would be "A Cake Walk" and "The war would pay for itself" and "The Iraqis would be throwing flowers at our feet!" and let's not forget "Mission Accomplished!" Your side has never been straight with us about how much trouble it would be and how much it would cost. If you were, no one would have ever gone along with it.

But that's what we've been trying for 8 years now and we have ISIS. Unfortunately, the ONLY solution for us is to kill the terrorists before they kill us. Because they are not going to stop trying to kill us. The so-called "normal life" for them is to hate us and want to kill us all. They put guns in the hands of their people when they are big enough to carry them and they are religiously committed to using them until they die to kill Infidels (that's us) and Jews. They are raised to believe their entire life is for the purpose of killing Infidels and Jews and they will be rewarded in heaven with 72 virgins.

Or we could "Just not go into their country" and "Stop supporting the Zionists"

Hey... I am a humanitarian person. I know you don't think so because I am a conservative but really, I am! I don't want to see any senseless death of innocent people or even misguided people. I wish we could all get along and share a Coke and sing on a mountainside holding hands. But we have an enemy who has declared war on us and they are a religiously fanatical enemy who have vowed to their God to kill us or die trying.

No, we have an enemy WE'VE created through years of stupid policy. We created Saddam. We created bin Laden. We created ISIS. We created the rebels who killed Ambassador Stevens.

 

[JoeB131]

That's because you have no honor. No code. No guts.....
I suppose you'd walk away from your own home in the same instance.
Just admit that you hate Jews and get it over with.
For once in your little insignificant existence on this rock, show some honesty

Here's the thing, guy. I wouldn't have moved into that home to start with.

If someone had told me, "Hey, if you move into this new neighborhood, all your neighbors are going to hate you, especially the guy we forcefully evicted from your current house who is now living in your tool shed. They will probably make concerted efforts to kill you."

I would have probably said, "Well, do you have any houses in a NICE neighborhood?"

What I woudl not have said was, "Well GOD wants me to have that house, so I'm going to spend every waking hour shooting at my neighbors and maybe shoot the previous' tenant's kids if I see them on the lawn!"

Because honestly, that would be crazy

 

[JoeB131]

so is it that he actually HATES jews. Or does he just use them to plaster over the failures and inconsistencies
of his own political clan.? Curious people want to know....

I don't hate the "Jews". I hate Zionism, a sick religious philosophy that says you get to take someone else's land because God Said So.

And frankly, most American Jews are a little embarrassed by Zionism. It's why 69% of them voted for Obama despite all Bibi's whining and moaning.

Zionism has become Crazy Uncle Moshe who screams about Hitler to your goyim friends at your Bat Mitzvah.

 

[edthecynic]

Since 2008, we have been following the policy of Obama

Dumb ass, Obama didn't take office as president until 2009.

Okay... Since January 20, 2009 then!

Is catching me in an error MORE important than the fucking topic, moron?

Stop crying, child, you fucked up the topic too, .

Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush

Obama Touts Fulfilled Iraq Pledge, But Withdrawal Deal Was Set Up by Bush
By Penny Starr | August 3, 2010 | 2:03 PM EDT

President Barack Obama told disabled veterans in Atlanta on Monday that he was fulfilling a campaign promise by ending U.S. combat operations in Iraq "on schedule."

But the timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops in Iraq was decided during the Bush administration with the signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) by U.S. and Iraq officials on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed SOFA on Nov. 27, 2008.

The agreement, which had been in negotiations since 2007, set a timetable calling for most U.S. troops to leave Iraqi towns and cities by June 30, 2009, with about 50,000 troops left in place until the final withdrawal of all U.S. military forces by Dec. 31, 2011.
"Today's vote affirms the growth of Iraq's democracy and increasing ability to secure itself," President George W. Bush said of the Iraqi parliamentary vote in a statement on Nov. 27, 2008. "Two years ago this day seemed unlikely - but the success of the surge and the courage of the Iraqi people set the conditions for these two agreements to be negotiated and approved by the Iraqi Parliament."

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, Zionism was born out of "My Sky Fairy Promised me this Land" and stealing it from the people who it rightfully belongs to. Oddly, they are still pissed, 70 years later.

So the entire history of land and who owns it began in 1948?

The land "rightfully belongs" to the Jewish people who lived their over 3,000 years ago. "Sky Fairy Promises" or not, they have vehemently defended their homeland time and time again. Since no one alive today is 3,000 years old, no one has any legitimate claim to the land other than the Jews. Now, it has been forcibly taken away from them by the Romans, the Egyptians, the Persians, the Ottomans, the Germans... you name it. But it has always been their land and will always be their land.

Whenever you see someone use the word "Zionist" you can pretty much rest assured they are a Jew-hater.

They stole it 3,000 years ago too!

Num 13: 17 And Moses sent them to spy out the land of Canaan, and said unto them, Get you up this way southward, and go up into the mountain:

18 And see the land, what it is; and the people that dwelleth therein, whether they be strong or weak, few or many;

19 And what the land is that they dwell in, whether it be good or bad; and what cities they be that they dwell in, whether in tents, or in strong holds;

20 And what the land is, whether it be fat or lean, whether there be wood therein, or not. And be ye of good courage, and bring of the fruit of the land. Now the time was the time of the firstripe grapes.

21 So they went up, and searched the land from the wilderness of Zin unto Rehob, as men come to Hamath.

22 And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)

23 And they came unto the brook of Eshcol, and cut down from thence a branch with one cluster of grapes, and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs.

24 The place was called the brook Eshcol, because of the cluster of grapes which the children of Israel cut down from thence.

25 And they returned from searching of the land after forty days.

26 And they went and came to Moses, and to Aaron, and to all the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh; and brought back word unto them, and unto all the congregation, and shewed them the fruit of the land.

27 And they told him, and said, We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it.

28 Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there.

29 The Amalekites dwell in the land of the south: and the Hittites, and the Jebusites, and the Amorites, dwell in the mountains: and the Canaanites dwell by the sea, and by the coast of Jordan.

30 And Caleb stilled the people before Moses, and said, Let us go up at once, and possess it; for we are well able to overcome it.