What The Hell Does A Normal American Need An Army Assault Weapon For.....Target Practice?

[nat4900]

Gnat, were you born this stupid, or did you suffer severe head trauma?

The above is what passes for right wing "intelligence"....Be proud, moron, be real proud....LOL

 

[nat4900]

Nice of you to find that funny Nat, but I notice you didn't answer why. Is that because you don't have an answer? Of course.

I found it funny because you are an idiot......Now you want to argue the Vietnam war???

We've gone from right wingers love of weapons....to the GWB's wars...and NOW. this moron wants to argue Vietnam....and then they want to be taken seriously.....NITWITS !!!!

 

[P@triot]

Um....we never left Afghanistan sweetie. We are still there under Barack Obama. We obliterated the Taliban, turned the country over to Hamid Karzai and the people of Afghanistan, left Special Forces to hunt Al Qaeda, and then moved on. Your false narrative keeps failing and is making you look really bad.

You're unqualified to be discussing this issue because you don't even realize the capabilities of the U.S. military to fight on multiple fronts.

We went to Afghanistan NOT to obliterate the Taliban.....Moron, we armed most of those people.
We went to Afghanistan to obliterate not the Taliban but Al-Qaeda...

Soooooo, bottom line......Bush's troops that never left Afghanistan DID manage to get OBL???
Just answer that question and you too will see what an idiot you are.

You dumb ass....the Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda. They were giving them safe haven. So yes....we did go to Afghanistan to obliterate the Taliban so that we could not only take out Al Qaeda, but prevent them from having a nation-state from harboring them. Idiot. You have no idea about recent U.S. history. You're a blind and stupid libtard.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The above is what passes for right wing "intelligence"....Be proud, moron, be real proud....LOL

You failed to answer?

Your current state, is it the result of brain trauma?

 

[P@triot]

Oh Natalie.....poor, poor naive, ignorant Natalie. It is well documented that Saddam Hussein unleashed WMD's on the Kurds in the North in the 1980's and 1990's. A basic Google search will show that much.

First of all, of course, Saddam used illegal weapons on the Kurds......WE HAVE THE RECEIPTS SINCE WE SOLD THOSE EVIL GASSES TO THEM.....

But, moron, did we ever find WMDs...The MAIN reason we were lied into an invasion......Yes or No???
Did we go to Iraq to punish Saddam for the Kurds' massacre....Yes or No???

LMAO!!! Natalie here is too stupid to even know what a WMD is. Sweetie.....if you start by saying that we "have the receipts" from the "gasses" we sold them, then you just acknowledged that he had WMD's, stupid.

Sweetie....WMD's stand for Weapons of Mass Destruction. And they are comprised of three basic categories: Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear. Astounding that you don't know something this basic. And no - you don't know it. Don't even pretend like you did because you just denied that Saddam had WMD's after talking about the chemical weapons we sold him.

To answer your question - yes, stupid. I provided the link where even MSNBC acknowledged the WMD's (in this particular case - sarin gas which is a chemical weapon, stupid).

You don't even know what it is that you don't know. You're so unqualified to be discussing any of this.

 

[P@triot]

The above is what passes for right wing "intelligence"....Be proud, moron, be real proud....LOL

You failed to answer?

Your current state, is it the result of brain trauma?

Her current state is the result of the disease known as liberalism. It's an awful form of cancer that eats away at the brain until they are astoundingly stupid and completely reliant on government for all of their basic needs.

 

[P@triot]

But, moron, did we ever find WMDs...The MAIN reason we were lied into an invasion......Yes or No???
Did we go to Iraq to punish Saddam for the Kurds' massacre....Yes or No???

You should really read info and click links before commenting on a post. A former Navy Seal (who I cited) talked about the WMD's that were found and I posted a link from MSNBC discussing the WMD's that were found.

The problem....of course....is that you're so fuck'n stupid - you think WMD means nuclear only.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
You dumb ass....the Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda. They were giving them safe haven. So yes....we did go to Afghanistan to obliterate the Taliban so that we could not only take out Al Qaeda, but prevent them from having a nation-state from harboring them. Idiot. You have no idea about recent U.S. history. You're a blind and stupid libtard.

Now Gnat will go to item #93 on his Hating Points (downloaded from ThinkDictatorship) and declare "Reagan created the Taliban."

This is one of those lies that leftist can't help but tell, regardless of how many times they get smacked down.

As far as Gnat knowing history, Gnat says whatever he is instructed to say to further the aims and goals of the party. You are not dealing with a rational or cognizant person who can be swayed by facts. This is a leftist who is utterly devoid of ethics; he promotes the party, it is all he does.

Remember, leftists make no distinction between lies and truth, they say whatever serves the party. Honesty is not part of their makeup. To the leftist, there is no truth, there are no lies, there is only the party.

 

[P@triot]

Um....we never left Afghanistan sweetie. We are still there under Barack Obama. We obliterated the Taliban, turned the country over to Hamid Karzai and the people of Afghanistan, left Special Forces to hunt Al Qaeda, and then moved on. Your false narrative keeps failing and is making you look really bad.

You're unqualified to be discussing this issue because you don't even realize the capabilities of the U.S. military to fight on multiple fronts.

We went to Afghanistan NOT to obliterate the Taliban.....Moron, we armed most of those people.
We went to Afghanistan to obliterate not the Taliban but Al-Qaeda...

Soooooo, bottom line......Bush's troops that never left Afghanistan DID manage to get OBL???
Just answer that question and you too will see what an idiot you are.

How is that the "bottom line"? The bottom line is that you ignorantly stated that we left Afghanistan and we didn't. Furthermore, Osama Bin Laden wasn't even in Afghanistan. He left after we arrived to kick ass. The fact that you don't know that much shows how stupid you are. Bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan you dumb shit.

Of course, if the CIA had located him in Pakistan and Bush had gone in there you'd be crying like a little bitch about us being in a third nation during the Bush Administration (because you're a blind, partisan hack).

 

[P@triot]

[
You dumb ass....the Taliban was harboring Al Qaeda. They were giving them safe haven. So yes....we did go to Afghanistan to obliterate the Taliban so that we could not only take out Al Qaeda, but prevent them from having a nation-state from harboring them. Idiot. You have no idea about recent U.S. history. You're a blind and stupid libtard.

Now Gnat will got to item #93 on his Hating Points (downloaded from ThinkDictatorship) and declare "Reagan created the Taliban."

This is one of those lies that leftist can't help but tell, regardless of how many times they get smacked down.

As far as Gnat knowing history, Gnat says whatever he is instructed to say to further the aims and goals of the party. You are not dealing with a rational or cognizant person who can be swayed by facts. This is a leftist who is utterly devoid of ethics; he promotes the party, it is all he does.

Remember, leftists make no distinction between lies and truth, they say whatever serves the party. Honesty is not part of their makeup. To the leftist, there is no truth, there are no lies, there is only the party.

'Ole Nat isn't too bright. But then again, what libtard is? She thinks WMD = nuclear weapon. She thinks that we shouldn't have taken out the Taliban. She thinks that Saddam Hussein posed no threat to global stability. And she's refuses to address how Obama has set the middle east on fire by over throwing dictators and helping radical muslims to implement Sharia Law (where they horribly oppress women). That's how dumb she is though.

 

[nat4900]

How is that the "bottom line"? The bottom line is that you ignorantly stated that we left Afghanistan and we didn't. Furthermore, Osama Bin Laden wasn't even in Afghanistan. He left after we arrived to kick ass. The fact that you don't know that much shows how stupid you are. Bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan you dumb shit.

How truly fucked up you are......

We DID leave Afghanistan with our major initial force....and morons like Bush and Cheney OPENLY stated that they were NO LONGER concerned about OBL....they had a war for oil that was much more important to them.

Go in a corner and play with yourself idiot.

 

[P@triot]

Did you know that in 1998 George Bush wasn't president? I wonder how these LIBERALS got it wrong. Also Bill(I did not have sexual relations with that woman) bombed an aspirin factory(killing an innocent janitor) that he thought was WMD. Boy you fucktards are stupid.

Idiot....the bombing of that aspirin factory was based on a report that OBL was there.....NOT top kill a janitor.

How truly stupid you right wingers are...

Well that military operation against Saddam Hussein was "based on a report that Saddam Hussein had WMD's" but you don't accept that. How funny. When a libtard does something - you accept it, no questions asked. When a Republican does the exact same thing, you have a melt down and come up with cute little tag lines like "Bush Lied, People Died". Idiot.

 

[Campbell]

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

View attachment 79297

LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.

You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.

That's a goddam boldfaced lie. The only reason Bush had to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993. Not to worry....his family vengeance only cost 4500 young American lives and 35,000 seriously wounded.

More liberal lies, do you guys ever smarten up?

The whole goddam Republican party had been looking for an excuse to get Saddam Hussein ever since he tried to kill GHW Bush. This letter to Clinton removes all doubt:


December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding,
and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end
of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear
and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a
new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready
to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam
Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we
can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to
punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections
were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if
not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during
which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely
that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we
will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle
East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass
destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American
troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant
portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President,
the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle
this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate.
The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten
to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action
as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy
for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy,
we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under
existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests
in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

 

[Campbell]

The NRA is DC's pimp and elected republicans the cheap whores.

I am surprised the moron didn't call US racist, but I am sure it isn't far from now.

View attachment 79297

LMAO!! That Bush comment is a no brainer. Ask the families of the 4500 dead young Americans who had to go in and find Saddam Hussein so the Bush family's "Vengeance" could be completed. The only motivation Bush had to get Saddam was because he tried to assassinate Bush's daddy in Qatar circa 1993.

The entire Republican party never got over that. This letter they wrote to Clinton proves it:

December 18, 1998

The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President,

We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.
That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor. The policy of containment of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not
producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam's secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess
such weapons. Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat. Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the
steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and
military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at
risk.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitag William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W.Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

What you libidiots fail to understand is that Republicans can be liberals too. Liberals love to get the US in wars, just look at the history of the liberals.
Woodrow Wilson ran on the NO US involvement in WWI and after his re election he got US involved.
FDR got US involved with the War in Germany after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor.
Truman got US involved in the Forgotten War.
Kennedy got US involved in the Vietnam War. Johnson escalated the war for his Texas Democrat war machine.
Bush Senior invaded Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait.
Clinton wagged the dog, in Bosnia when he got caught with a Cuban in Monica.
Bush Junior went to war with Iraq when Osama Obama bombed NY.
Obama's Clinton bombed Libya, just because she could do it.

You liberals love war, how else can they reduce the population other than aborting liberal fetus's. Thank you for that, otherwise there would be many more liberals in America today.

That's a goddam boldfaced lie. The only reason Bush had to invade Iraq was that Saddam Hussein tried to assassinate his daddy in Qatar circa 1993. Not to worry....his family vengeance only cost 4500 young American lives and 35,000 seriously wounded.

Wrong....over 3,000 Americans died because clinton allowed muslim terrorists to fester and grow in power.....sadaam had been in violation of every part of the cease fire agreement he had signed.....and was funding terrorist groups around the world......allowing him to continue to be a problem would have been a mistake....

Bush's biggest mistake...going to war with democrats behind him...because as soon as the war began, they started undermining the effort.....

Bull Shit and Horse Cock!

 

[Campbell]

Did you know that in 1998 George Bush wasn't president? I wonder how these LIBERALS got it wrong. Also Bill(I did not have sexual relations with that woman) bombed an aspirin factory(killing an innocent janitor) that he thought was WMD. Boy you fucktards are stupid.

Idiot....the bombing of that aspirin factory was based on a report that OBL was there.....NOT top kill a janitor.

How truly stupid you right wingers are...

Well that military operation against Saddam Hussein was "based on a report that Saddam Hussein had WMD's" but you don't accept that. How funny. When a libtard does something - you accept it, no questions asked. When a Republican does the exact same thing, you have a melt down and come up with cute little tag lines like "Bush Lied, People Died". Idiot.

Our government never said that Hussein had WMD's until Bush incorporated the lie for an excuse to invade. Leading up to it they told 935 documented lies. Bush wanted him bad....4500 dead's worth.

 

[P@triot]

How is that the "bottom line"? The bottom line is that you ignorantly stated that we left Afghanistan and we didn't. Furthermore, Osama Bin Laden wasn't even in Afghanistan. He left after we arrived to kick ass. The fact that you don't know that much shows how stupid you are. Bin Laden was found and killed in Pakistan you dumb shit.

How truly fucked up you are......

We DID leave Afghanistan with our major initial force....and morons like Bush and Cheney OPENLY stated that they were NO LONGER concerned about OBL....they had a war for oil that was much more important to them.

That's because we didn't need a "major force" stupid. All we needed was special forces hunting him and CIA for intelligence.

See, intelligent people do things based on need. After we obliterated the Taliban and installed a stable government under Hamid Karzai, are only purpose left was to hunt Osama Bin Laden in the Hindu Kush mountains. We weren't going to do that with the U.S. Army. You can't take tanks and Humvees up the mountain, stupid. It was a job custom made for special forces. And our U.S. Navy Seals were handling that (meanwhile, our Delta Force was handling the hunt for Saddam Hussein in Iraq).

Please don't try to discuss military tactics now. You're far too ignorant for that. With each desperate post you just expose your ignorance more and more. Stick to things you know about - like enema's (that you brought up), promiscuity, and drugs & alcohol. That's pretty much the extent of liberal knowledge.

 

[nat4900]

Well that military operation against Saddam Hussein was "based on a report that Saddam Hussein had WMD's" but you don't accept that. How funny. When a libtard does something - you accept it, no questions asked. When a Republican does the exact same thing, you have a melt down and come up with cute little tag lines like "Bush Lied, People Died". Idiot.

This forum is not the venue to fix right wing stupidity....(only a sturdy 2x4 could do that over their fucked up heads.)

We went to Iraq for 3 reasons:

1. To STEAL their oil...
2. To make GWB into a "hero" war president......
3. To divert blame for 9-11 and the tanking US economy....PERIOD !!!

Spin it any way you want, right wing morons.......It will NOT help your sorry consciences.

 

[nat4900]

Our government never said that Hussein had WMD's until Bush incorporated the lie for an excuse to invade. Leading up to it they told 935 documented lies. Bush wanted him bad.

Good friend......Google the seldom mentioned "Italian Letter" about how evil Cheney managed to LIE us into a deadly war.

 

[P@triot]

Our government never said that Hussein had WMD's until Bush incorporated the lie for an excuse to invade. Leading up to it they told 935 documented lies. Bush wanted him bad.

Our government wasn't making public cases about his WMD's. Of course, our intelligence community had been monitoring him ever since 1991. The fact is, not only did he have WMD's, he had actually used them (against the Kurds in the north of Iraq).

 

[P@triot]

Well that military operation against Saddam Hussein was "based on a report that Saddam Hussein had WMD's" but you don't accept that. How funny. When a libtard does something - you accept it, no questions asked. When a Republican does the exact same thing, you have a melt down and come up with cute little tag lines like "Bush Lied, People Died". Idiot.

This forum is not the venue to fix right wing stupidity....(only a sturdy 2x4 could do that over their fucked up heads.)

We went to Iraq for 3 reasons:

1. To STEAL their oil...
2. To make GWB into a "hero" war president......
3. To divert blame for 9-11 and the tanking US economy....PERIOD !!!

Spin it any way you want, right wing morons.......It will NOT help your sorry consciences.

Oh Lord....here we go. Natalie gets her info from Hollywood. We went into Iraq for "oil". Funny thing though - we didn't plant the American flag. We have no oil (that's why prices skyrocketed to $4 per gallon under Barack Obama's failed leadership), and we handed the nation over to the Iraqi people.

And sweetie....the economy "tanked" because of the housing collapse. And the housing collapse happened because Bill Clinton and the libtards signed the 1997 Community Re-Investment Act which incentivized banks to make loans to people who couldn't afford the loans (because idiot libtard socialism dictates that "everybody" should own a home - whether they can afford one or not). I'm truly enjoying educating you today. I also enjoy your frustration over the realization that everything you were ever trained to believe is a lie. You're conflict is palpable.