Why Bush Should be Impeached

[Skeptic]

Please provide a link to any claims I have made. See post #3951 (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=923492&postcount=3951) Yep, that's because you're carrying a message that's been refuted and rejected for what, some large fraction of 3951 posts? ko:blabla: = :loser:

[koban]

you idiot - you really expected me to cover ground that BillyBob got to before me?


OK:


Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East."

Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one."

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."

Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives."

John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein
is a threat with nuclear weapons, then
you shouldn't vote for me."

Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States."

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein."

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors."

John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."

Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"[I]f you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..."





Now go away.

and take these carrots with you




:skeptic: = :loser:

[koban]

:baby:

Wahh! Nobody will agree with me!

:taoist:

[Skeptic]

Now go away.

and take these carrots with you I'm not going anywhere.

BillyBob has failed miserably at trying to refute my positions.

Hillary Clinton > October 10, 2002
"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Tough rhetoric. No evidence.

John Kerry > February 23, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." Suspected intent is NOT a justification for war! Kerry knew this, which is why he did NOT authorize Bush's invasion of Iraq, based upon the evidence he had.

Bill Richardson > May 29, 1998
"The threat of nuclear proliferation is one of the big challenges that we have now, especially by states that have nuclear weapons, outlaw states like Iraq."
Tough rhetoric. No evidence.

Tom Daschle > February 11, 1998
"The (Clinton) administration has said, 'Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." Iraq was complying before Bush's unnecessary and immoral invasion.

Joe Biden > August 4, 2002
"First of all, we don't know exactly what he has. It's been five years since inspectors have been in there, number one. Number two, it is clear that he has residual of chemical weapons and biological weapons, number one." Tough rhetoric. No evidence. If one has no clue as to what a country has in term of WMD, then there is no justification for launching an all-out military invasion.

Al Gore > September 23, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Tough rhetoric. No evidence.

Johnny Edwards > February 6, 2003
"The question is whether we're going to allow this man who's been developing weapons of mass destruction continue to develop weapons of mass destruction, get nuclear capability and get to the place where -- if we're going to stop him if he invades a country around him -- it'll cost millions of lives as opposed to thousands of lives." Tough rhetoric. No evidence.

John Kerry > January 31, 2003
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." Tough rhetoric. No evidence.

Hillary Clinton > January 22, 2003
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution. I consider the prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein who can threaten not only his neighbors but the stability of the region and the world, a very serious threat to the United States." Tough rhetoric. No evidence.

Bill Clinton > February 17, 1998
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st Century.... They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." Tough rhetoric. No evidence.

Bill Clinton > December 17, 1998
"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq.... Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors." Tough rhetoric. No evidence.

John Kerry > January 23, 2003
"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction." Tough rhetoric. No evidence.

Al Gore > December 16, 1998
"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He has already demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons..." Tough rhetoric. No evidence. We were NOT allowing Saddam to get WMD. Saddam was NOT left unchecked. The U.S. and the UN made sure of that. Unfounded tough rhetoric is fine for purposes of exerting political and diplomatic pressure. It is NOT fine for justifying war! When it comes to war, tough rhetoric MUST be supported by HARD evidence of a real threat.

As I've said elsewhere, it's understandable that most people in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations strongly suspected that Saddam had WMDs. It was politically useful to make strong claims to that effect, in order to put pressure on Saddam to comply with UN Resolutions. But it's an entirely different matter to make such claims with such certainty so as to instill fear in members of Congress and the American people, in order to win support for a massive bloody invasion of another country, knowing this will result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children! For such an invasion, strong suspicions are no longer sufficient.

Again, in the absence of a high level of certainty, it's fine to claim they have WMD to win support for increased political and diplomatic pressure on a regime such as Saddam's. But, in the absence of certainty, it is NOT fine to actually launch a massive invasion against such a regime, knowing full well that the lives of many thousands of innocent people are at stake, as well as the lives of our brave troops! When it comes to war, the burden of proof of a threat is much greater than the kind used to exert political and diplomatic pressure.

Try again loser.

ko:blabla: = :loser:

[Skeptic]

Nobody will agree with me?

Did you know that most Americans now oppose Bush's unnecessary and immoral war?

So, there are plenty of people who agree with me.

:loser:

[koban]

:baby:

Wahh!!

I don't like BillyBob's evidence!!!

:taoist:







:mock: :skeptic:



By the way, here's a carrot for you - Omega says he's done with it.

[Skeptic]

Still playing your game of claiming the existence of nonexistent "refutations"?

BillyBob has not provided any evidence that refutes my position.

Try again loser.

I seriously doubt whether you are even able to try to refute anything on your own. :chuckle:

ko:blabla: = :loser:

[koban]

:baby:

Wahhh!

I don't like BillyBob's evidence!!!

:taoist:






Take the carrots out of your.. .er,...um ears and look again jerkweed.



:mock: :skeptic:

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm:

[simply one]

I got it! :thumb:

Operating from the same information base, demo:Commie:s got it wrong, Republicans -- lied!

:darwinsm: Another saranwrap argument courtesy of :mock::simpleton:.

FE, which politcal party controlled Congress and the Presidency, and therefore the intelligence gathering, in the leadup to the INVASION. I'll give you a hint: it was not those "vile demo:Commie:s"......So, when the group in power deliberately misinforms, YES, I consider that lying. When the misinformed disseminate there incorrect intelligence, I simply consider that being WRONG.

:mock::dunce:

[simply one]

"America: The Best Democracy That Corporate Lobbyists Can Buy"

[Frank Ernest]

FE, which politcal party controlled Congress and the Presidency, and therefore the intelligence gathering, in the leadup to the INVASION.
Bill Clinton and the demo:Commie:s. It was he and his toadies who eliminated intelligence ground resources, appointed demo:Commie: lickspittles to upper-level management in the CIA, FBI and Defense and eliminated a good chunk of the standing military forces.

I'll give you a hint: it was not those "vile demo:Commie:s"......
:darwinsm: Thanks for the "hint."

So, when the group in power deliberately misinforms, YES, I consider that lying. When the misinformed disseminate there incorrect intelligence, I simply consider that being WRONG.
Then go after your demo:Commie: buddy and fellow liar, Clinton, who deliberately gutted our intelligence and military capabilities during the '90s.

:mock::dunce:
:darwinsm: :nananana:

[koban]

You forgot :mock:SO

[Frank Ernest]

You forgot :mock:SO
Oops! Sorry, Kobi.

:mock::simpleton: (or :dunce: :dizzy: :kookoo: :eek: :Commie: )

[simply one]

Bill Clinton and the demo:Commie:s. It was he and his toadies who eliminated intelligence ground resources, appointed demo:Commie: lickspittles to upper-level management in the CIA, FBI and Defense and eliminated a good chunk of the standing military forces.

He eliminated standing military forces becuase he was working to spread peace and cooperation, and not pushing for imperialist, unilateral military power.


Then go after your demo:Commie: buddy and fellow liar, Clinton, who deliberately gutted our intelligence and military capabilities during the '90s.

He could not have gutted intelligence too badly, considering the cooperation between intelligence agencies peaked during the Clinton administration, and he received daily intelligence breifings from multiple sources. In addition, US intelligence left from Clinton was able to predict 9/11, as published in the August 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined too Strike US", which discussed the possiblity of airplane hijackings. So, the "gutted" intelligence agencies still predicted the worst terrorist attack on American soil...but it was and still is primarily the failure of the ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH.

[simply one]

:mock: ko:blabla:

:mock: F:dunce:E

[koban]

He eliminated standing military forces becuase he was working to spread peace and cooperation, and not pushing for imperialist, unilateral military power.

:darwinsm:



He could not have gutted intelligence too badly, considering the cooperation between intelligence agencies peaked during the Clinton administration, and he received daily intelligence breifings from multiple sources. In addition, US intelligence left from Clinton was able to predict 9/11, as published in the August 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined too Strike US", which discussed the possiblity of airplane hijackings. So, the "gutted" intelligence agencies still predicted the worst terrorist attack on American soil...but it was and still is primarily the failure of the ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH.

Hey SO - I'm warning you right now that terroroists want to strike at the US using something, somewhere, don't know when.

What do you plan to do to stop them?

[koban]

:mock: ko:blabla:

:mock: F:dunce:E


:darwinsm:

SO = :Commie:

[Frank Ernest]

He eliminated standing military forces becuase he was working to spread peace and cooperation, and not pushing for imperialist, unilateral military power.
:darwinsm: And you believed that? :darwinsm: :mock::simpleton:

He could not have gutted intelligence too badly, considering the cooperation between intelligence agencies peaked during the Clinton administration, and he received daily intelligence breifings from multiple sources. In addition, US intelligence left from Clinton was able to predict 9/11, as published in the August 2001 memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined too Strike US", which discussed the possiblity of airplane hijackings. So, the "gutted" intelligence agencies still predicted the worst terrorist attack on American soil...but it was and still is primarily the failure of the ADMINISTRATIVE BRANCH.
:darwinsm: I haven't seen such gullibility in a long time.

[simply one]

:darwinsm: And you believed that? :darwinsm: :mock::simpleton:


Actually, yes, yes I do believe that. I believe that the world was a safer and generally "nicer" place under Clinton than it is under Bush.

:darwinsm: I haven't seen such gullibility in a long time.

Gullibility?!?! In WHAT? The fact that the President of the USA received a document stating a significant threat to the country from a particular organization and using particular methods means NOTHING to you does it? President Bush, if he even took time from his vacation to read Security memos, did NOTHING about the threat, and seemed completely dumbfounded when the worst came true under his reign. I get worried when the President of the USA will not take 10 minutes off his vacation to read a few pages of a security memo that obviously points out a threat to his country. Especially when he is willing to put his political aims first, rushing to D.C. for a braindead woman in a vegetative state for whom all medical methods of recuperation have been exhausted after over a decade of artificial life. A President who puts his party's politcal goals before the safety of the American people does not deserve to lead us.

[simply one]

Hey SO - I'm warning you right now that terroroists want to strike at the US using something, somewhere, don't know when.

What do you plan to do to stop them?

I have a slightly different level of power and responsibility than the President of the United States.

In addtion, it was not "something"... the memo included several possible methods INCLUDING airplane hijacking. And it was not quite as vague as "sometime"; the memo reported a fairly imminent threat to US security. And what did Bush do? Did he investigate the issue? Did he attempt to secure US airports? Nope... he played a round of golf.

[BillyBob]

What did Clinton do? He got a blow job and played a round of golf with Ken Lay.

[simply one]

What did Clinton do? He got a blow job and played a round of golf with Ken Lay.

What did Clinton do WHEN? Show me a memo saying that the US faced an imminent terrorist threat under Clinton and I will believe you. It was the success of Clinton Intelligence, which reached significant cross-agency cooperation (unlike under Bush), that allowed the gather gathering of evidence to be put in Bush's memo.

BB, if you received credible reports from your friends telling you that someone was planning on hurting you, your family, or your property sometime soon, would you sit by and do nothing?

[BillyBob]

What did Clinton do WHEN? Show me a memo saying that the US faced an imminent terrorist threat under Clinton and I will believe you.

Um, the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists in while Clinton was in office.

It was the success of Clinton Intelligence, which reached significant cross-agency cooperation (unlike under Bush), that allowed the gather gathering of evidence to be put in Bush's memo.

:darwinsm:

You've got to be kidding! :darwinsm:



BB, if you received credible reports from your friends telling you that someone was planning on hurting you, your family, or your property sometime soon, would you sit by and do nothing?

Nope, I'd kill him. That being the case, why did Bill Clinton not seize the opportunity to imprison Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance?

[simply one]

Um, the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists in while Clinton was in office.

DId he have a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the US" or something similar, which also included possible methods of attack?

Nope, I'd kill him. That being the case, why did Bill Clinton not seize the opportunity to imprison Osama Bin Laden when he had the chance?

When did Clinton have a clear-cut chance to capture Bin Laden?

And why did Bush not capture Osama when he invaded Afghanistan? If the US had commited more troops to securing Afghanistan, Osama would most likely be caught and the world would be a safer place. Instead, Bush reserved the bulk of our military for an invasion of Iraq, which has made the world significantly less safe.

A few dozen people die, and insufficient response? That's wrong, but understandable.

3000 deaths and an insufficient response, despite prior warnings? Unacceptable.

Things are relative here BB.

[BillyBob]

DId he have a memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the US" or something similar, which also included possible methods of attack?

Yes.




When did Clinton have a clear-cut chance to capture Bin Laden?

The Sudanese offered Bin Laden on a platter to Clinton and he rejected the offer. He instead suggested that the Saudi's take him instead. What a weasel!

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://prisonplanet.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html

http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/clintonosama.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/sudan_bin_laden.html

http://www.drudgereport.com/matt91h.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166004,00.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95001289



And why did Bush not capture Osama when he invaded Afghanistan? If the US had commited more troops to securing Afghanistan, Osama would most likely be caught and the world would be a safer place. Instead, Bush reserved the bulk of our military for an invasion of Iraq, which has made the world significantly less safe.

A few dozen people die, and insufficient response? That's wrong, but understandable.

3000 deaths and an insufficient response, despite prior warnings? Unacceptable.

Things are relative here BB.

Yep, and you are a relative Commie. :Commie:

[simply one]

The Sudanese offered Bin Laden on a platter to Clinton and he rejected the offer. He instead suggested that the Saudi's take him instead. WQhat a weasel!

http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm

http://prisonplanet.com/sudan_offered_to_arrest_bin_laden.html

http://www.lyingliar.com/lies/clintonosama.htm

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/12/5/153637.shtml

http://www.tupbiosystems.com/articles/sudan_bin_laden.html

http://www.drudgereport.com/matt91h.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166004,00.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/rminiter/?id=95001289

Hmm...I'll swallow my pride on this one. Clinton had a chance. But in 1996, 97, and 98, Osama was not quite the clearcut threat that he was in 2001. Still, this is not a memo PRIOR to the attacks. In addition, if Clinton had failed to capture Osama, why didn't Bush finish the job? If Clinton had the intelligence, Mr. Bush must have had it too.

Yep, and you are a relative Commie. :Commie:

:doh: I forgot that caring about others and supporting equality and peace made be a Communist.

anyways, I have work to do, then :grave:

[BillyBob]

Hmm...I'll swallow my pride on this one. Clinton had a chance. But in 1996, 97, and 98, Osama was not quite the clearcut threat that he was in 2001.

How do you figure? The USS Cole had been attacked, the World Trade Center had been attacked, Marine barracks had been attacked, the US Embassy had been attacked....

Still, this is not a memo PRIOR to the attacks. In addition, if Clinton had failed to capture Osama, why didn't Bush finish the job? If Clinton had the intelligence, Mr. Bush must have had it too.


Yeah, Bush had been in office a whole 8 months after 8 years of Clinton's lethargic Presidency and you wanna blame Bush for everything? :darwinsm:

[Mr. 5020]

Yeah, Bush had been in office a whole 8 months after 8 years of Clinton's lethargic Presidency and you wanna blame Bush for everything? :darwinsm:Never quite understood that myself.

[BillyBob]

Me either. :nono:

[koban]

Originally Posted by koban

Hey SO - I'm warning you right now that terroroists want to strike at the US using something, somewhere, don't know when.

What do you plan to do to stop them?



I have a slightly different level of power and responsibility than the President of the United States.

In addtion, it was not "something"... the memo included several possible methods INCLUDING airplane hijacking. And it was not quite as vague as "sometime"; the memo reported a fairly imminent threat to US security. And what did Bush do? Did he investigate the issue? Did he attempt to secure US airports? Nope... he played a round of golf.


:darwinsm:

I guess your answer is "I'll weasel out of answering the question and then spend some time attacking Bush"

And you want us to listen to you expound on foreign policy and Bush's fitness for office???

What a maroon!!

[Frank Ernest]

Actually, yes, yes I do believe that. I believe that the world was a safer and generally "nicer" place under Clinton than it is under Bush.
:shocked: You an old-timer hippie?

Gullibility?!?! In WHAT? The fact that the President of the USA received a document stating a significant threat to the country from a particular organization and using particular methods means NOTHING to you does it?
What are you talking about? :confused: Yes, gullible is the appropriate word.

President Bush, if he even took time from his vacation to read Security memos, did NOTHING about the threat, and seemed completely dumbfounded when the worst came true under his reign. I get worried when the President of the USA will not take 10 minutes off his vacation to read a few pages of a security memo that obviously points out a threat to his country.
:darwinsm: You got that from the New York Times, didn't you? You will believe anything that sounds good with which you agree.

Especially when he is willing to put his political aims first, rushing to D.C. for a braindead woman in a vegetative state for whom all medical methods of recuperation have been exhausted after over a decade of artificial life.
Life or death is a political issue. Spoken like a true :Commie:.

A President who puts his party's politcal goals before the safety of the American people does not deserve to lead us.
:darwinsm: Alternative universe again.

[koban]

Mornin' Ralph!

[Frank Ernest]

Can't understand why simpleton gives Clinton a pass and blames everything on Bush?

Clue:
A President who puts his party's politcal goals before the safety of the American people does not deserve to lead us.

Tell me which administration the above most aptly describes. Clinton or Bush?

[koban]

How many choices do I get?

Three? :dizzy:

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: Take your time.

[koban]

I'm thinking the guy that was in charge for eight years (yes folks, that's EIGHT years) right before the 9-11 attacks.

[BillyBob]

This thread is hilarious! :darwinsm:

[koban]

:mock::skeptic:

[Frank Ernest]

I'm thinking the guy that was in charge for eight years (yes folks, that's EIGHT years) right before the 9-11 attacks.
:mock: :skeptic:
No, it wasn't :mock::skeptic:. You have two more guesses.

[koban]

Aww, nuts!


Was I close?

[Frank Ernest]

Aww, nuts!


Was I close?
You have the right :idea:. Don't give up now. You're vewy, vewy close! :up:

[koban]

I know!

I know!!


That cigar guy!!

the dress-stainer!

[fool]

Iraq attacked the U.S
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/11/iraq/

September 11, 1996
Web posted at: 1:20 p.m. EDT (1720 GMT)

From Correspondent Jamie McIntyre

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An Iraqi surface-to-air missile was fired Wednesday at two U.S. Air Force fighter jets but missed the planes as the F-16s patrolled the no-fly zone in northern Iraq, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said. An earlier Pentagon report said two missiles were fired.

Just Google no-fly zone and ya can read all about how the first Iraq war never really ended.
Clinton should have taken stronger steps then.
Osama blew up 2 embassies in Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
Clinton should have taken stronger steps then.
This does not mean that everything Bush does is right.
But I'm glad to see that the world hates and fears us now.
Rather than using us for target practice with little or no concequences.

[koban]

Your momma didn't raise no fool!

[Frank Ernest]

I know!

I know!!


That cigar guy!!

the dress-stainer!
By Golly! I think you've got it! And, in only two guesses. :darwinsm:

[simply one]

:darwinsm:

I guess your answer is "I'll weasel out of answering the question and then spend some time attacking Bush"

And you want us to listen to you expound on foreign policy and Bush's fitness for office???

What a maroon!!

You cannot expect me personally to be able to stop a terrorist attack, unless of course I pull a 24, which ain't too easy.

Also, I believe you meant "moron", as in an dumb person, and not "maroon", a dark reddish-burgandy colour.... of which I am neither.

:dunce:

[simply one]

Can't understand why simpleton gives Clinton a pass and blames everything on Bush?

Clue:


Tell me which administration the above most aptly describes. Clinton or Bush?

Tell me which adminstration will go down in history for lying about an invasion and getting our troops into a total mess in a divided country, creating record deficits, and having the largest to date terrorist attack on AMerican soil under his watch?

[simply one]

Iraq attacked the U.S
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9609/11/iraq/

Just Google no-fly zone and ya can read all about how the first Iraq war never really ended.
Clinton should have taken stronger steps then.
Osama blew up 2 embassies in Africa.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
Clinton should have taken stronger steps then.
This does not mean that everything Bush does is right.
But I'm glad to see that the world hates and fears us now.
Rather than using us for target practice with little or no concequences.

Hmm... possibly the fact that Clinton had the airforce patrol over and bomb Iraq just MIGHT represent that there were some consequences. Possibly he know what his predeccessor, GHW Bush, also knew: invading Iraq would cause huge strain on the US military and lead to a prolonged quagmire.

Osama oraganized the killing of 3000 Americans... Thats roughly (and I'm rounding here) 30-60 times the number killed by Osama's organization under Clinton. It's been over 4 years now, and the cowboy is farther from rounding him up than ever.

[simply one]

I know!

I know!!


That cigar guy!!

the dress-stainer!

Fidel Castro? :luigi:

[simply one]

:shocked: You an old-timer hippie?

:nono:

What are you talking about? :confused: Yes, gullible is the appropriate word.

FE:dunce:

:darwinsm: You got that from the New York Times, didn't you? You will believe anything that sounds good with which you agree.

Actually, No, I did not. It is possible that they said something similar, but I haven't (unfortunately) had the time to read the paper recently.

Life or death is a political issue. Spoken like a true :Commie:.

Actually, it isn't. I was referring to the way that Republicans politiczied the issue. From a memo circulated in the Senate to Republicans, written by Brian Darling, on the Schiavo issue:

This is a great political issue...This is a tough issue for Democrats...The pro-life base will be excited that the Senate is debating this important issue.

Hmm... who's politicizing life and death again? Furthermore, instead of fessing up, the Republicans then called the memo fake and blamed it on Democrats. This ploy was exposed on April 7, and Darling was forced to resign from his post as a staffer for Florida Senator Mel Martinez.

:darwinsm: Alternative universe again.

Its true. My universe is different than yours, in fact everyone's "universe" is a little different. But my universe corresponds to reality, making it unique from yours.

And to make this all a little more sophmoric, I'll wrap up with:

:mock: F:dunce:E
:mock: ko:blabla:

[fool]

Hmm... possibly the fact that Clinton had the airforce patrol over and bomb Iraq just MIGHT represent that there were some consequences. Possibly he know what his predeccessor, GHW Bush, also knew: invading Iraq would cause huge strain on the US military and lead to a prolonged quagmire.
And G.W. figured it different.
He figured that Afganistan would continue to support Osama, and he took em out.
He figured that Saddam would keep flinging missiles at his pilots and he took em out.
Sure it was a strain.
Did ya think it was free?

Osama oraganized the killing of 3000 Americans... Thats roughly (and I'm rounding here) 30-60 times the number killed by Osama's organization under Clinton. It's been over 4 years now, and the cowboy is farther from rounding him up than ever.
GW has alot of Osama's boy locked up.
It's a different world.

[Frank Ernest]

Tell me which adminstration will go down in history for lying about an invasion and getting our troops into a total mess in a divided country, creating record deficits, and having the largest to date terrorist attack on AMerican soil under his watch?
Abraham Lincoln.

[Frank Ernest]

:nono:
Sure you are. You argue like one.
FE:dunce:
:darwinsm: simpleton :mrt: Foo'

Actually, No, I did not. It is possible that they said something similar, but I haven't (unfortunately) had the time to read the paper recently.
Hmmmmmm. DNC marching orders must be getting more time-consuming.

Actually, it isn't. I was referring to the way that Republicans politiczied the issue.
:darwinsm: Very typical for a lie-beral to accuse opponents of excactly what he is doing.

Hmm... who's politicizing life and death again? Furthermore, instead of fessing up, the Republicans then called the memo fake and blamed it on Democrats. This ploy was exposed on April 7, and Darling was forced to resign from his post as a staffer for Florida Senator Mel Martinez.
:darwinsm: It was a great pro-life issue. Showed the demo:Commie: pro-death party for what it is. I really do get some laughs out of demo:Commie:s trying to portray themselves as "moral."

Its true. My universe is different than yours, in fact everyone's "universe" is a little different. But my universe corresponds to reality, making it unique from yours.
:darwinsm: :cloud9: Reality ain't your bag. Short-sighted political advantage is more like it.

And to make this all a little more sophmoric, I'll wrap up with:

:mock: F:dunce:E
:mock: ko:blabla:
I have never thought you had a problem with being sophomoric. Since you like to dabble in simplistic stupidities, I was leaning more toward :dizzy:.

[Skeptic]

Hey SO - I'm warning you right now that terroroists want to strike at the US using something, somewhere, don't know when.

What do you plan to do to stop them? Regime change in the U.S. would help.

The best and most long-lasting way to reduce terrorism (it will never be stopped entirely) is to reduce those factors that motivate people to become terrorists. A prime motivating factor is hatred. No, they don't hate us for our "freedom and democracy." They hate us for our policies toward them.

This is from a Pentagon report: Thus the US has strongly taken sides in a desperate struggle ... US policies and actions are increasingly seen by the overwhelming majority of Muslims as a threat to the survival of Islam itself. Three recent polls of Muslims show and overwhelming conviction that the U.S. seeks to "dominate" and "weaken" the Muslim world ... Americans have inserted themselves into this intra-Islamic struggle in ways that have made us an enemy to most Muslims...

Muslims do not "hate our freedom," but rather they hate our policies. The overwhelming majority voice their objections to what they see as one-sided support in favor of Israel and against Palestinian rights, and the long-standing, even increasing, support for what Muslims collectively see as tyrannies, most notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan and the Gulf states.

Thus when American public diplomacy talks about bringing democracy to Islamic societies, this is seen as no more than self-serving hypocrisy. Moreover, saying that "freedom is the future of the Middle East" is seen as patronizing, suggesting that Arabs are like the enslaved peoples of the old Communist World -- but Muslims do not feel this way: they feel oppressed, but not enslaved.

Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering. U.S. actions appear in contrast to be motivated by ulterior motives, and deliberately controlled in order to best serve American national interests at the expense of truly Muslim self-determination.

Therefore, the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars. American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah (the entire Muslim community) invaded and under attack -- to broad public support.

source (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf) President Bush is the prime symbol of what is perceived as anti-Muslim U.S. policies. When Bush is replaced by a new President, who publicly denounces the failed reckless and dangerous policies of his Administration, we will begin to see a significant reduction in anti-American hatred across the world, particularly the Muslim world. This will be quickly followed by a reduction of Muslim extremist terrorism toward the U.S.

Sage advice: Wars are fought for political ends. Soldiers can only do so much. And the last mile in every war is about claiming the political fruits. The bad guys in Iraq can lose every mile on every road, but if they beat America on the last mile – because they are able to intimidate better than America is able to coordinate, protect, inform, invest and motivate – they will win and America will lose.

source (http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html) America can only win without Bush!

[koban]

:skeptic:'s pick for president:

[Skeptic]

If you disagree with the above Pentagon report please explain why.

[simply one]

Abraham Lincoln.

Minus the terrorist attack part?

[koban]

If you disagree with the above Pentagon report please explain why.


Because you're a tool

[simply one]

It's a different world.

A less safe one with much more enmity towards the US of A.

[simply one]

Becuase you're a tool

Koban say: "yeah dude, a tool of the Man" *takes another hit*

[Skeptic]

Because you're a tool If you disagree with the above Pentagon report please explain why.

[BillyBob]

If you disagree with the above Pentagon report please explain why.

I don't give a flying crap what Muslims like and dislike.

[Skeptic]

I don't give a flying crap what Muslims like and dislike. Do you give a flying crap about significantly reducing terrorism?

[BillyBob]

Absolutely, by killing Muslims.

[BillyBob]

And I don't give a flying crap if they don't like it! :BillyBob:

[Frank Ernest]

Minus the terrorist attack part?
Quantrill's Raiders.

[BillyBob]

Is he impeached yet? :yawn:

[lovemeorhateme]

Is he impeached yet? :yawn:

:shut:

[koban]

:chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

Is he impeached yet? :yawn:
Informally, yes.

[BillyBob]

Does that count?

[koban]

Probably not :sigh:

Which means that Skreppie and Simpleton will keep this asinine thread going ad infinitum (ad nauseam)

[Frank Ernest]

Probably not :sigh:

Which means that Skreppie and Simpleton will keep this asinine thread going ad infinitum (ad nauseam)
:darwinsm: I do enjoy playing with their brains since they don't appear to be using them for anything.

[simply one]

:darwinsm: I do enjoy playing with their brains since they don't appear to be using them for anything.

FE(in a zombie voice): "BRAINSSSSS.....MUST EAT BRAINSSS"

:shocked:

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: :yawn:

[Skeptic]

Here's a relevant post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=936355&postcount=234).

[BillyBob]

That nobody is going to bother reading....

[Skeptic]

That nobody is going to bother reading.... Afraid to challenge your world view, BillyBob?

:mock: :BillyBob:

[koban]

Here's a relevant post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=936355&postcount=234).



I read the condensed version:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=936428&postcount=235

[Skeptic]

I read the condensed version:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=936428&postcount=235 The truth is sickening, isn't it.

[koban]

Distortions of it are worse.

Of course, you're the master. :rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

Distortions of it are worse. Show us the distortions.

[koban]

:think:

Just about anything posted by :skeptic:

[Skeptic]

Just about anything posted by :skeptic: When you know you can't rationally counter the message, demonize the messenger, right ko:blabla:?

[koban]

No, that would be :Commie: :devil:


C'mon, haven't you been paying attention?

[Skeptic]

Published on Monday, November 14, 2005 by The Nation
Bush Rewrites History To Criticize His Anti-war Critics
by David Corn

In a Veterans Day speech on Friday, delivered to troops and others at the Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, George W. Bush veered from the usual commemoration of sacrifice to strike at critics who have questioned whether he steered the country into war by using false information. This has become a tough and troubling issue for his presidency. A poll taken before his speech found that 57 percent of the respondents now believe that Bush "deliberately misled" the nation into war. That is astounding and, I assume, without precedent in history. Has there been another wartime period during which a majority of Americans believed the president had purposefully bamboozled them about the reasons for that war? Addressing this charge is tough for Bush because it calls more attention to it, and the on-ground-realities in Iraq only cause more popular unease with the war. But Bush and his aides calculated that it was better to punch back than ignore the criticism, and that's a sign that they're worried that Bush is coming to be defined as a president who conned the nation into an ugly war. So Bush tried. Let's break down his effort:

"Our debate at home must also be fair-minded. One of the hallmarks of a free society and what makes our country strong is that our political leaders can discuss their differences openly, even in times of war."

Conservative who claim raising questions about the war does a disservice to the troops and is anti-American might want to keep these words in mind.

"When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

Actually, Congress did not approve Bush's decision to remove Saddam. In October 2002, the House and Senate approved a resolution that gave Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq if he deemed that appropriate. At the time, Bush and his aides were claiming it was their goal to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction and his WMD programs (which, we know now, did not exist). When the resolution passed---and in the weeks after---the White House insisted that Bush was not bent on "regime change" and that he was willing to work within the UN to force Saddam to accept UN inspectors (which Saddam did) in pursuit of the goal of disarming Iraq. Is Bush now saying that he had already resolved to invade Iraq at this point and all his talk about achieving disarmament through the UN process was bunk? Is he rewriting history--or telling us the real truth? In any event, when Bush did order the invasion of Iraq months later in March 2003, he did not ask Congress to vote on his decision to remove Saddam.

Read more .... (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1114-30.htm)

[Skeptic]

Published on Monday, November 14, 2005 by the Kennebec Journal (Maine)
U.S. Troops in Iraq Can Handle the Truth
Editorial

President Bush continues to insist that U.S. troops in Iraq should not know -- or do not want to know -- the truth about the war.

On Veterans Day, the president blasted -- and questioned the patriotism -- of those who challenge or criticize the administration for its apparent mistakes before and during the ongoing conflict that has now killed almost 2,100 U.S. troops and injured thousands more.

Instead of chastising and trying to shame critics, Bush should address their concerns and doubts directly.

On Friday, Bush delivered a speech in which he again said that patriotic Americans would not speak out against the war -- at least in ways that could get back to the troops.

"It is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began," Bush told a Veterans Day audience in Pennsylvania.

"These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

The president's words ignore the growing proof that is causing more people to question how the United States was led into war.

Bush calls it rewriting history. We see it as setting the record straight.

Read more ... (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1114-26.htm)

[Skeptic]

Links:

The Worst Speech of Bush's Presidency (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1113-21.htm)

How Bush Defiled Veterans Day (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1113-28.htm)

[Frank Ernest]

Read the links. If you're not a :Commie: and opine that communism is "stupid", why are your sources all :Commie:, all the time?

[Skeptic]

Read the links. If you're not a :Commie: and opine that communism is "stupid", why are your sources all :Commie:, all the time? Because they aren't.

[koban]

Oh, but they are.

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[koban]

I could do this all night!

[simply one]

Here's a relevant post (http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=936355&postcount=234).

:thumb:

[simply one]

Can't we all just get along :cloud9:


Maybe once the righties realize that they're actually "wrongies":chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Simpleton! :madmad:

[BillyBob]

I could do this all night!

:darwinsm: :dog:

[simply one]

Simpleton! :madmad:

I'm back... took the weekend off ;)

Anyways, I'm not up for a good argument tonite cause of a splitting headache...

Suffice to say, Bush's poll numbers are in the pits, Iraq's a quagmire, and things aren't looking good for the next 3 years...

:think:

[BillyBob]

:Commie:

[koban]

I'm back... took the weekend off ;)

Anyways, I'm not up for a good argument tonite cause of a splitting headache...

Suffice to say, Bush's poll numbers are in the pits, Iraq's a quagmire, and things aren't looking good for the next 3 years...

:think:



try this :bang:

[simply one]

:Commie:

Equality? :thumb:

Caring for others? :thumb:

Justice? :thumb:

Transparency in Government? :thumb:

Rule for the good of everyone? :thumb:

Bloody revolution of the proletariat? :down: not so good

[simply one]

try this :bang:

I was thinking tea, rest, and tylenol...

but you're ideas a pretty good one, for a conservative to think of.

[Frank Ernest]

Equality? :thumb:
Never happens under communism. Everything is determined by political favors and status.

Caring for others? :thumb:
Communists care for (use) their friends and ruthlessly punish their political enemies.

Justice? :thumb:
Under communism, :darwinsm:

Transparency in Government? :thumb:
Even more :darwinsm:

Rule for the good of everyone? :thumb:
See equality and caring for others.

Bloody revolution of the proletariat? :down: not so good
Exactly what the people you're praising (i.e., terrorists) do for a living. If it's "not so good", why do you approve of the people who promote it?

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

[Delmar]

Communists care for (use) their friends and ruthlessly punish their political enemies.

Just like Hillary!

[koban]

Never happens under communism. Everything is determined by political favors and status.

Communists care for (use) their friends and ruthlessly punish their political enemies.

Under communism, :darwinsm:

Even more :darwinsm:

See equality and caring for others.

Exactly what the people you're praising (i.e., terrorists) do for a living. If it's "not so good", why do you approve of the people who promote it?

You haven't been paying attention, have you?



I think he's thinking of a hippie commune type of communism, not the Mao and Uncle Joe show that so wowed the world for decades. :rolleyes:

[Frank Ernest]

I think he's thinking of a hippie commune type of communism, not the Mao and Uncle Joe show that so wowed the world for decades. :rolleyes:
You'd be surprised at the number of hippies who are Stalinist and/or ran around waving their little red Mao books.

[koban]

No surprise here.

I wonder how many of them moved to Cuba or the Soviet Union or Red China to live "the good life" ?:freak:

[Frank Ernest]

No surprise here.

I wonder how many of them moved to Cuba or the Soviet Union or Red China to live "the good life" ?:freak:
None, as far as I know. They were waiting for the Cubans, Russians or Chinese to come here and take over.

[koban]

You're probably not a South Park fan, but there's an episode where Cartman (the conservative) is sleeping and dreaming. As he twitches (obviously a nightmare) he says:

Hippies!
Hippies everywhere!
They say they want to save the planet, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad! :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

-- IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in insurgency (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Bush's unnecessary invasion dramatically increased terrorism!
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 2,069
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 15,477
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 26,982 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 wounded (thru March '05) - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Who voted for Iraq's constitution? Not Sunnis!
Who disproportionately dominates Iraq's army & police? Shiites & Kurds.
Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet!

[Frank Ernest]

You're probably not a South Park fan, but there's an episode where Cartman (the conservative) is sleeping and dreaming. As he twitches (obviously a nightmare) he says:

Hippies!
Hippies everywhere!
They say they want to save the planet, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad! :chuckle:
:darwinsm: Pretty much true-to-life. You're prolly too young to remember the Haight-Ashbury in San Francisco back in the '60s.

[koban]

My parents tried to keep that sort of thing from me. I was 8 in '68. Real straight arrow all the way up to college.

[koban]

:Commie:

[Zimfan]

You're probably not a South Park fan, but there's an episode where Cartman (the conservative) is sleeping and dreaming. As he twitches (obviously a nightmare) he says:

Hippies!
Hippies everywhere!
They say they want to save the planet, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad! :chuckle:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to koban again.

[Frank Ernest]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to koban again.

[koban]

Wrong thread, guys.

This is the :mock::skeptic::duh: thread.

[simply one]

I think he's thinking of a hippie commune type of communism, not the Mao and Uncle Joe show that so wowed the world for decades. :rolleyes:

Actually, I'm refering more to Communism in Theory. Not the failure of it in practice. In theory, communism ain't too shabby, with everyone having enough and such..... but unfortunately Humans are, well, HUMAN, and too greedy to selflessly care for others.

If everyone showed unlimited compassion, Jesus Christ-style, then I think the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the way the modern world exists, with the USA as a prime example of overwhelming self-interest and greed dominating the populace.

[simply one]

You're probably not a South Park fan, but there's an episode where Cartman (the conservative) is sleeping and dreaming. As he twitches (obviously a nightmare) he says:

Hippies!
Hippies everywhere!
They say they want to save the planet, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad! :chuckle:

Is that the one when he makes the giant drill (THE CORE-style) and drills through the 15 mile thick hippie jam band fest?

:chuckle:

[koban]

Is that the one when he makes the giant drill (THE CORE-style) and drills through the 15 mile thick hippie jam band fest?

:chuckle:


No I missed that one. I don't have cable anymore, so my memories of South Park are of older episodes.


Sounds funny, though. :chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

Actually, I'm refering more to Communism in Theory. Not the failure of it in practice. In theory, communism ain't too shabby, with everyone having enough and such..... but unfortunately Humans are, well, HUMAN, and too greedy to selflessly care for others.
That's a standard :Commie: line. Been hearing it for years. :yawn:

If everyone showed unlimited compassion, Jesus Christ-style, then I think the world would be a much better place. Unfortunately, that simply isn't the way the modern world exists, with the USA as a prime example of overwhelming self-interest and greed dominating the populace.
:darwinsm: That, too, is a standard repetition of an old :Commie: line. :sleep: zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

How does it feel to be the enemy and hate yourself at the same time?

:mock: :simpleton::duh:

[koban]

BTW Frank - Skeptic's taken his show on the road. He's over on Crash's "Liberals Are Evil Sinners" thread.


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=940818&postcount=21

[Frank Ernest]

BTW Frank - Skeptic's taken his show on the road. He's over on Crash's "Liberals Are Evil Sinners" thread.


http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=940818&postcount=21
:darwinsm: Thanks for the heads up. :mock::skeptic::duh:

[Skeptic]

I'm honored that they need to keep tabs on me!

They must view me as a threat. :darwinsm:

[Thirsty_Possum]

Skeptic is a commie homo.

:Commie:

[BillyBob]

Skeptic is a commie homo.

:Commie:

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Skeptic is a commie homo.

:Commie: Oh, you have hurt my feelings! :taoist:

Not. :darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

Can't hurt what isn't there. Right, :skeptic::duh: ?

[soothsayer]

I say let him stay in office, finish out his term, and see what more shame he can bring to the red states that re-elected him. Anyways, impeaching him would not not likely help the situation in Iraq, and would probably serve to make a martyr of Bush rather than a criminal.

[Skeptic]

I say let him stay in office, finish out his term, and see what more shame he can bring to the red states that re-elected him. This will probably be the case.

Anyways, impeaching him would not not likely help the situation in Iraq, and would probably serve to make a martyr of Bush rather than a criminal. Bush won't be impeached, even though he should be.

Impeachment, however, would likely turn him into a martyr only in the eyes of the extreme fringe radical right-wing fanatics.

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Worse than Watergate? The Mother of All Constitutional Crises (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1122-27.htm)

Now, when the President waves the 9/ll voodoo doll, Congress, the media, and the public flinch. :darwinsm:

[BillyBob]

You commies are still lamenting Watergate and Vietnam. :loser:

[BillyBob]

Ah, the good ole days.... :cloud9:

[wholearmor]

I think Bush should be impeached for having that crappy Texas accent.

I think Bush should be impeached for having that stupid look on his face all the time.

[wholearmor]

Skeptic is a commie homo.

:Commie:

Or at the very least he's a homo-loving commie. He said he wouldn't mind if his son came home with a homo lover and went in the bedroom to plug each other's butt before dinner.

[koban]

Thanks WA :rolleyes:

:vomit:

[Skeptic]

Or at the very least he's a homo-loving commie. He said he wouldn't mind if his son came home with a homo lover and went in the bedroom to plug each other's butt before dinner. No, they could at least have the decency to wait until after dinner! :doh:

[Frank Ernest]

Oh yes! We must maintain the extended-pinky etiquette of the situation. :rotfl:

[koban]

Hide the carrots!

[DonW]

Nothing new here in the last month... :sleep:

[koban]

or past couple of years.......

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: Maybe they're out enjoying the holidays commemorating people they don't believe existed and events they claim never happened.

[simply one]

:darwinsm: Maybe they're out enjoying the holidays commemorating people they don't believe existed and events they claim never happened.

The wholesome Thanksgiving Myth... with Indians and Pilgrims sharing a happy meal...

The part that's left out: the food was all stolen from the Indians, and the Pilgrims gave the "native Americans" some nice, warm, smallpox-filled blankets after dinner.

Not to mention the new information that North America was in no way "pristine wilderness" before colonies. The native americans had controlled the wildlife for their gain far centuries. Its just that the native americans controlled the "wilderness" in a nature-friendly way.

But, at least the holiday is a great reason to get together with family, watch football, and gorge on food.

[shilohproject]

But, at least the holiday is a great reason to get together with family, watch football, and gorge on food.Skip work, too, huh?:cool:

[shilohproject]

:darwinsm: Maybe they're out enjoying the holidays commemorating people they don't believe existed and events they claim never happened.Are you talking about Santa and the one night speed-dash around the world?

[wholearmor]

Thanks WA :rolleyes:

:vomit:

Well, is that what they do or don't they? It should make you and everyone else sick.

[Frank Ernest]

Are you talking about Santa and the one night speed-dash around the world?

:darwinsm: To an athiest :Commie: it's all the same.

[BillyBob]

The wholesome Thanksgiving Myth... with Indians and Pilgrims sharing a happy meal...

The part that's left out: the food was all stolen from the Indians, and the Pilgrims gave the "native Americans" some nice, warm, smallpox-filled blankets after dinner.

Not to mention the new information that North America was in no way "pristine wilderness" before colonies. The native americans had controlled the wildlife for their gain far centuries. Its just that the native americans controlled the "wilderness" in a nature-friendly way.
.

:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

The wholesome Thanksgiving Myth... with Indians and Pilgrims sharing a happy meal...
Ok by me.

The part that's left out: the food was all stolen from the Indians, and the Pilgrims gave the "native Americans" some nice, warm, smallpox-filled blankets after dinner.
Let me see if I have this one, simpleton. The colonists stole all their food from the Indians and then the Indians sat down to share a meal with them. And you would honestly believe this? Don't you think the Indians would be a little "miffed" over this? :dunce:

Not to mention the new information that North America was in no way "pristine wilderness" before colonies. The native americans had controlled the wildlife for their gain far centuries. Its just that the native americans controlled the "wilderness" in a nature-friendly way.
Ah, yes! Always the "new" information. :darwinsm: How about "new" = falsified rewrite of acutal history?

But, at least the holiday is a great reason to get together with family, watch football, and gorge on food.
Only if all the food is stolen and everyone is wrapped in smallpox-infested blankets. :thumb: Have to retain the spirit of the "new" information.

[koban]

Ok by me.

Let me see if I have this one, simpleton. The colonists stole all their food from the Indians and then the Indians sat down to share a meal with them. And you would honestly believe this? Don't you think the Indians would be a little "miffed" over this? :dunce:

Ah, yes! Always the "new" information. :darwinsm: How about "new" = falsified rewrite of acutal history?

Only if all the food is stolen and everyone is wrapped in smallpox-infested blankets. :thumb: Have to retain the spirit of the "new" information.



Thanks Frank - when I first saw this, I didn't even bother with a :mock:SO, it was so blatantly bad. I figured if I waited long enough, SO would supply the punchline. Guess we'll have to do it.


:mock:SO

[Frank Ernest]

Thanks Frank - when I first saw this, I didn't even bother with a :mock:SO, it was so blatantly bad. I figured if I waited long enough, SO would supply the punchline. Guess we'll have to do it.


:mock:SO
Prolly. If SO is running true to form, he accepts what his :Commie: teachers say without question.

[Skeptic]

-- IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
Pre-war IC doubts about WMD: Plenty!
Pre-war doubts re: WMD acknowledged by Bush: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of home grown insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in Iraq (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Bush's unnecessary invasion dramatically increased terrorism!
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 2,127
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 15,704
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 27,295 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 wounded (thru March '05) - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Who voted for Iraq's constitution? Not Sunnis! :nono:
Who is adequately represented in Iraq's army & police? Not Sunnis! :nono:
A sign of progress in Iraq? Death squads and torture chambers. :nono:
Iraqi free press? Not when paid for by the Pentagon! :nono:
Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet! :nono:

Should Bush be impeached? Yes!
Will Bush be impeached? Not as long as Right-Wing fanatics are in power!

[BillyBob]

Is he impeached yet? :darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Is he impeached yet? :sozo: Are right-wing fanatics still in power?

[BillyBob]

Better that than the Left Wing fanatics who want to cut and run from the enemy.

[Ninjashadow]

Hey Skeptic, I got a hypothetical question for you. Let's just assume for a moment that Gore had won instead of Bush (and don't make some stupid comment like 'Gore did win!') and he had invaded Iraq and handled everything the same way as Bush. Would you be calling for his impeachment?

[Skeptic]

Better that than the Left Wing fanatics who want to cut and run from the enemy. The insurgents are not our enemy! Bush's unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq started a civil war between the Sunnies and Shiites. We continue to insert ourselves in a civil war we created, and suffer the consequences. To Sunnies, the insurgents are freedom fighters. To Shiites, the insurgents are their enemy. The insurgents are only our "enemy" so long as we take sides in the civil war, and insist on imposing our will on a country that doesn't want us there.

As for al-Qaeda and foreign fighters, they comprise only a small proportion of fighters and only pose a threat so long as we remain in Iraq. I know of no evidence that suggests that Al-Qaeda is interested in taking over and running a new government. Al-Qaeda is a bunch of terrorists, not nation builders. If the U.S. departed from Iraq, al-Qaeda would likely favor any Islamic government that is not sponsored and manipulated by the U.S. But simply because al-Qaeda is one of our real enemies, it does not rationally follow that we need to do whatever pisses them off, namely continue our presence in a land in which we should not be present.

We would be doing Iraq and ourselves a favor by leaving (not running) from Iraq. In the long run, the U.S. leadership is going to have to apologize for Bush's unnecessary and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq. Doing this will help decrease terrorist threats to America.

[Skeptic]

Hey Skeptic, I got a hypothetical question for you. Let's just assume for a moment that Gore had won instead of Bush (and don't make some stupid comment like 'Gore did win!') and he had invaded Iraq and handled everything the same way as Bush. Would you be calling for his impeachment? Of course!

[Ninjashadow]

Ok, answer the question again, but this time truthfully.

[Skeptic]

Ok, answer the question again, but this time truthfully. If you don't believe me, why ask?

Any president of any party should be impeached, if he or she invades a country that is not a threat, which unnecessarily kills thousands of innocent men, women and children, and lies to the American people about the urgency of the threat.

[BillyBob]

:blabla:.

:yawn:

[Frank Ernest]

Latest House of Representatives vote:

For an immediate withdrawal of all troops in Iraq:

Right-Wing fanatics - 403 against

Brilliant Left-Wing Paragons of Virtue - 3 for.

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Latest House of Representatives vote:

For an immediate withdrawal of all troops in Iraq:

Right-Wing fanatics - 403 against

Brilliant Left-Wing Paragons of Virtue - 3 for.

You know that was a sham vote cooked up by the right-wing fanatics.

[BillyBob]

Are you saying that the lefties didn't vote the way Frank represented?

[Frank Ernest]

You know that was a sham vote cooked up by the right-wing fanatics.
:darwinsm: OH! I agree that the resolution was spontaneous, and with serious intent and consequences.

Here was the big chance for the Left-Wing Paragons of Civic Virtue to vote FOR an immediate withdrawal of ALL troops from Vietnam Iraq. Here was the BIG CHANCE for the purveyors of the courageous cut-and-run strategy to stand up for what they believe in and spew every day. Here was the GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY to vote their consciences and reflect, what they say every day, is the WILL OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

But NOOOOOOOOOOO! The camembert-and-cabernet crowd did WHAT?!?!?!?!

They voted NO 403 times.

They voted 403 times to continue the (they say) ILLEGAL WAR started by an (they say) ILLEGITIMATE president. They voted 403 times to leave the troops in place DESPITE the apparent absence of WMD.

They voted 403 times to support the policy of a president whose living guts they hate.

Even the rabid grandma from California, the shrieking run-amok fascist leader of the Left-Wing Paragons of Civic Virtue was for it, before she voted against it, and then was for it again.

Is that what people mean when they talk about "relative" morality?"

[Skeptic]

Are you saying that the lefties didn't vote the way Frank represented? The Republicans forced a vote on immediately withdrawing troops from Iraq, even though most Democrats favored the more reasonable gradual pullout offered by Murtha.

My emphasis:
Iraq withdrawal handily defeated
Murtha's call for pullout spurs fiery debate, vote in House

Saturday, November 19, 2005;

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House late Friday overwhelmingly rejected calls for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq, a vote engineered by the Republicans that was intended to fail.

Democrats derided the vote as a political stunt.

"Our troops have become the enemy. We need to change direction in Iraq," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a Democratic hawk whose call on Thursday for pulling out troops sparked a nasty, personal debate over the war.

The House voted 403-3 to reject a nonbinding resolution calling for an immediate troop withdrawal.

...
Murtha, a 73-year-old retired Marine colonel decorated for combat service in Vietnam, issued his call for a troop withdrawal at a news conference on Thursday. In little more than 24 hours, Hastert and Republicans decided to put the question to the House.

Democrats said it was a political stunt and quickly decided to vote against it in an attempt to drain it of significance.

"A disgrace," declared House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California. "The rankest of politics and the absence of any sense of shame," added Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the No. 2 House Democrat.

Republicans hoped to place Democrats in an unappealing position -- either supporting a withdrawal that critics said would be precipitous or opposing it and angering voters who want an end to the conflict. They also hoped the vote could restore GOP momentum on an issue -- the war -- that has seen plummeting public support in recent weeks.

Democrats claimed Republicans were changing the meaning of Murtha's withdrawal proposal. He has said a smooth withdrawal would take six months.

...
Murtha has proposed his own resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region. It also said the U.S. must pursue stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

The Republican alternative simply said: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."

"It's just heinous," Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-California, said of the Republican move.

...
"Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency," Murtha, said Thursday. "They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

"It's time to bring the troops home," he said.

Republicans pounced, chastising Murtha for advocating what they called a strategy of surrender and abandonment, and Democrats defended Murtha as a patriot, even as they declined to back his view.

"I won't stand for the swift-boating of Jack Murtha," Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2004, responded Friday. Also a Vietnam veteran, Kerry was dogged during the campaign by a group called the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that challenged his war record.

"There is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and conscience," Kerry said.

For his part, Kerry has proposed a phased exit from Iraq, starting with the withdrawal of 20,000 troops after December elections in Iraq. A Kerry spokesman said "he has his own plan" when asked if Kerry agreed with immediate withdrawal.

...
With a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts, Murtha retired from the Marine Corps reserves as a colonel in 1990 after 37 years as a Marine, only a few years longer than he's been in Congress. Murtha, elected in 1974, has become known as an authority on national security whose advice was sought out by Republican and Democratic administrations alike.

source (http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/11/18/congress.iraq.ap/?eref=yahoo)

[Skeptic]

They voted NO 403 times.

They voted 403 times to continue the (they say) ILLEGAL WAR started by an (they say) ILLEGITIMATE president. They voted 403 times to leave the troops in place DESPITE the apparent absence of WMD.

They voted 403 times to support the policy of a president whose living guts they hate.
Many of the 403 votes were by those who disagreed with Bush's unnecessary, immoral and ILLEGAL WAR, and who would have voted FOR a resolution to gradually bring the troops home over the next 6 - 12 months.

Their vote during the Republican political stunt was NOT a vote to show support for Bush's policy in Iraq.

[Frank Ernest]

Many of the 403 votes were by those who disagreed with Bush's unnecessary, immoral and ILLEGAL WAR, and who would have voted FOR a resolution to gradually bring the troops home over the next 6 - 12 months.
:darwinsm: What difference would that make? 5 minutes, 6 months, the effect would be the same. Another distinction without a difference. Is that hair-splitting legalism what passes for logic and reason in the Stuck on Stupid (i.e., demo:Commie: ) crowd? :hammer:

Their vote during the Republican political stunt was NOT a vote to show support for Bush's policy in Iraq.
:darwinsm: & :rotfl: What is President Bush's policy in Iraq? Leave the troops until the job is done. 403 US Representatives voted to do just that.

By the way, I'm perfectly well aware that Congressman Murtha's sham resolution was nothing more than a stupid and ill-timed political ploy to get the demo:Commie:s in front of a good political probability for 2006. Didn't work, did it? :nananana:

Demo:Commie:s lie, people die. :down:
Demo:Commie:s aid, abet and give comfort to the enemy in time of war. (That's called treason.) :down:

Your credibility and that of your maggot-infested demo:Commie: buds is confirmed at zero, zippo, nada, nichts, nikogda, and :nono:.

[BillyBob]

:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm:
I admit my Gloatmeter went into the red zone. :chuckle:

[Skeptic]

What is President Bush's policy in Iraq? Leave the troops until the job is done. 403 US Representatives voted to do just that. No, 403 U.S. Representatives merely voted to not withdraw troops immediately. How do you define "immediately"? The vote said nothing about leaving troops there "until the job is done."

[BillyBob]

Stop splitting hairs, Skeppie. You're on the losing team and you know it. The libs don't want the US to win this war and neither do you.

You are a traitor and should be hanged.:Letsargu:

[Skeptic]

Stop splitting hairs, Skeppie. You're on the losing team and you know it. The libs don't want the US to win this war and neither do you. Have you seen Bush's poll numbers lately? And what about the support for Bush's unnecessary war? :loser:

You are a traitor and should be hanged. Bush is the traitor!

[BillyBob]

Have you seen Bush's poll numbers lately? And what about the support for Bush's unnecessary war? :loser:

Yep, 60% of the American people agree that we should not pull out of Iraq.



Bush is the traitor!

:darwinsm:

[Frank Ernest]

Yep, 60% of the American people agree that we should not pull out of Iraq.
Poll that actually means something:

92.6% of the House of Representatives agree that we should not pull out of Iraq.

[BillyBob]

Yep!

[Frank Ernest]

47% of demo:Commie:s polled want Saddam Hussein back in power.

[BillyBob]

Maybe they should nominate him as their Candidate in 08.

[Frank Ernest]

Maybe they should nominate him as their Candidate in 08.
They probably will -- in drag.

[Skeptic]

Yep, 60% of the American people agree that we should not pull out of Iraq. FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Nov. 29-30, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you think there should be a publicly announced timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq?" 11/29-30/05

Should 47%
Should Not 41%
Unsure 12%


"Do you think the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq encourages or discourages terrorist attacks by the insurgency?" 11/29-30/05

Encourages 44%
Discourages 31%
No Difference (vol.) 10%
Unsure 15%


CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 11-13, 2005. Adults nationwide.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" 11/11-13/05

Approve 35%
Disapprove 63%
Unsure 2%


"Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by November 2006 -- that is, in 12 months' time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq." 11/11-13/05

Withdraw Now 19%
Withdraw Within 12 Months 33%
Take as Long As Needed To Withdraw 38%
Send More Troops 7%
Unsure 3%

(52% wanted troops home between now and 12 months)


The Harris Poll. Nov. 8-13, 2005. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there OR bringing most of our troops home in the next year?" 11/8-13/05

Wait for Stable Government 35%
Bring Home In Next Year 63 %
Unsure 3%

[Vaquero45]

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Nov. 29-30, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you think there should be a publicly announced timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq?" 11/29-30/05

Should 47%
Should Not 41%
Unsure 12%

This would be strategically stupid. The "should" people are stupid or ignorant.


"Do you think the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq encourages or discourages terrorist attacks by the insurgency?" 11/29-30/05

Encourages 44%
Discourages 31%
No Difference (vol.) 10%
Unsure 15%

Your point? We attract the terrorist scum who hate us. WOW! Stop the presses, Skeptic made a huge discovery!


CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Nov. 11-13, 2005. Adults nationwide.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?" 11/11-13/05

Approve 35%
Disapprove 63%
Unsure 2%

I'd like to see this question first filtered by, "Can you describe the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?


"Here are four different plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the war in Iraq. Which ONE do you prefer? Withdraw all troops from Iraq immediately. Withdraw all troops by November 2006 -- that is, in 12 months' time. Withdraw troops, but take as many years to do this as are needed to turn control over to the Iraqis. OR, Send more troops to Iraq." 11/11-13/05

Withdraw Now 19%
Withdraw Within 12 Months 33%
Take as Long As Needed To Withdraw 38%
Send More Troops 7%
Unsure 3%



(52% wanted troops home between now and 12 months)
"Take as long as needed" is the only logical answer unless you somehow know that more troops are needed. "Withdraw Now" is idiotic, and "12 Months" is arbitrary.

The Harris Poll. Nov. 8-13, 2005. N=1,011 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there OR bringing most of our troops home in the next year?" 11/8-13/05

Wait for Stable Government 35%
Bring Home In Next Year 63 %
Unsure 3%

"Bring Home in Next Year" is arbitrary and illogical.

[Skeptic]

"Bring Home in Next Year" is arbitrary and illogical. Sorry, but your side is losing. :loser:

Six months to a year is a good compromise. If we wait for "Mission Accomplished," we'll never get out of there.

What was illogical (and immoral) was Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq, which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of our brave troops and many thousands of innocent men, women and children.

[Mr. 5020]

Sorry, but your side is losing. :loser:

Six months to a year is a good compromise. If we wait for "Mission Accomplished," we'll never get out of there.

What was illogical (and immoral) was Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq, which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of our brave troops and many thousands of innocent men, women and children.Nobody thought so before the world started. And on another note, all of those questions have to do with what people think or with what they prefer. If I follow that wording, I would prefer (I would like it if) George Bush brought our troops home tomorrow. But I know that is illogical. C'mon Skeppie, seems like after all these years of repeating this mantra, you would have gotten better at it.

[Vaquero45]

Sorry, but your side is losing. :loser:

Sorry, (since we are throwing the word around insincerely) Your poll examples were flawed as I pointed out, unless you correct me.

Six months to a year is a good compromise. If we wait for "Mission Accomplished," we'll never get out of there.

How/why is "6 months" a good number?

What was illogical (and immoral) was Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq, which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of our brave troops and many thousands of innocent men, women and children. Ever been called "Drama Queen" before? If not, consider it done!

[`Love.]

Sorry, but your side is losing. :loser:

Six months to a year is a good compromise. If we wait for "Mission Accomplished," we'll never get out of there.

What was illogical (and immoral) was Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion and occupation of Iraq, which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of our brave troops and many thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Too bad Bush didn't fill Saddam's status quo for unnecessary, immoral, bloody and illogical murders. :sigh:

Maybe next time. :dunce:

[`Love.]

By the way, those of you who hate Bush, do you seriously think anyone else could have handled it better?

Like...Kerry? :rotfl:

That sack of sand's only way to defend America would be to bore Saddam to death. He'd probably take a walk with Saddam and brag about his purple hearts for 10 hours, followed by taking 6 hours to decide what he wants for dinner at a nearby resturaunt.

Kerry: Uh, well, the bran muffin will be good for my colon.
Waitress: One Bran Muffin?
Kerry: Well, I didn't say that. What I meant was the bran muffin wouldn't be good for me.
Waitress: Ok, should I come back later?
Kerry: No, no, I know what I want!
Waitress: Then, can I take your order?
Kerry: The fish would probably taste pretty good. Maybe with lemon. I like lemons.
Waitress: One Fillet. With Lemons.
Kerry: Now, wait just one minute. I didn't say I wanted that. What I meant was, I want something to eat. I haven't decided yet.

:loser:

[Skeptic]

Nobody thought so before the world started. Before the world started?

And on another note, all of those questions have to do with what people think or with what they prefer. That's what polls do.

If I follow that wording, I would prefer (I would like it if) George Bush brought our troops home tomorrow. But I know that is illogical. Of course it is. It takes time to bring all of the troops home. Some of them could, however, come home tomorrow.

C'mon Skeppie, seems like after all these years of repeating this mantra, you would have gotten better at it. The message remains the same. Until our troops are home, the mantra will be repeated.

Of course, Bush and his Pentagon/CIA buddies still have to pay for their crimes, so no future Administration will repeat them.

[Skeptic]

How/why is "6 months" a good number? Six months to a year gives Bush plenty of time to bring the troops home. If he could do it in less time, fine.

Ever been called "Drama Queen" before? If not, consider it done! War is the most dramatic thing in which a nation can participate.

The unnecessary deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children that has result from Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq cannot be over-emphasized.

Tragically, such unnecessary large-scale deaths have been under-emphasized by the media and the government.

[Skeptic]

Too bad Bush didn't fill Saddam's status quo for unnecessary, immoral, bloody and illogical murders. Saddam's atrocities should not minimize Bush's.

[Skeptic]

By the way, those of you who hate Bush, do you seriously think anyone else could have handled it better? Even Bush could have done better.

[Frank Ernest]

The message remains the same. Until our troops are home, the mantra will be repeated.
Mindless, robotic, emotionless, unprincipled, political :blabla:.

Of course, Bush and his Pentagon/CIA buddies still have to pay for their crimes, so no future Administration will repeat them.
:darwinsm: More mindless, robotic, emotionless, unprincipled, political :blabla:.

[Frank Ernest]

War is the most dramatic thing in which a nation can participate.
No, it isn't. Hanging traitors is.

The unnecessary deaths of many thousands of innocent men, women and children that has result from Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq cannot be over-emphasized.
Yeah, it can, since it is a bald-faced lie.

Tragically, such unnecessary large-scale deaths have been under-emphasized by the media and the government.
:darwinsm: Tragically, it means your lying :Commie: propaganda is gaining any traction.

[Mr. 5020]

Before the world started?The war. :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

It's good to see some new blood in this thread!! Keep it up, fellas! :up:

[Mr. 5020]

It's good to see some new blood in this thread!! Keep it up, fellas! :up::thumb:

[`Love.]

Even Bush could have done better.

By doing...... :think:

[Frank Ernest]

I suspect "better" means conceding the 2000 election to Algore, all Republicans in Congress resigning in favor of demo:Commie:s. Then :skeptic::duh: and his totalitarian thugs could rape, loot, and pillage at will.

[BillyBob]

FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll. Nov. 29-30, 2005. N=900 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you think there should be a publicly announced timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq?" 11/29-30/05

Should 47%
Should Not 41%
Unsure 12%



Skeptic, the timetable was announced before we ever even entered the war. Bush said it may take decades to defeat terrorism, what's your hurry and what possible advantage would it be for the US to announce a timetable for a pull-out of Iraq?

You demopukes are politicizing the efforts of the US military, hurting our war effort, placing our soldiers in danger by bolstering the confidence of our enemy and openly hoping for our defeat! You are as much the enemy of the United States as the terrorists who wish to destroy us.

And why? So you can win an election????

You are all traitors and enemies of the State. If I was George Bush, I'd start rounding up every treasonous Congressman [and Congressfemi-nazi Like Nancy Pelosi] and have them shot. Then I'd find you and all your treasoness fellow bloggers and add your bodies to the pile of rotting corpses. I'd pour gasoline on them, light a match and sing Christmas Carols and Victory Songs, dance in the streets and then go finish this war unencumbered by anti-American scum who had no sense of patriotism, perseverance or propriety. :BillyBob:

[Skeptic]

By doing...... :think: By not doing what he did.

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, the timetable was announced before we ever even entered the war. Invading Iraq was not necessary for fighting global terrorism. In fact, invading Iraq dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against America. Really bad move on the part of Bush.

Bush said it may take decades to defeat terrorism, Terrorism will never be defeated. And, other than brief local reductions, it will not be significantly reduced by military means.

what's your hurry and what possible advantage would it be for the US to announce a timetable for a pull-out of Iraq? To reduce the unnecessary deaths of our brave troops.

To reduce the unnecessary deaths of thousands more Iraqis.

To reduce the threat of terrorism everywhere.

Those are good reasons for a timetable.

politicizing the efforts of the US military, Bush did that by invading Iraq.

hurting our war effort, Our "war effort" is tragically misguided.

placing our soldiers in danger Bush did that by unnecessarily invading Iraq.

bolstering the confidence of our enemy Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq emboldened people to become terrorists who would not otherwise have become terrorists. As long as we think in black and white terms of "good guys" (us) and "bad guys (the enemy), terrorism will not be reduced.

and openly hoping for our defeat! Unjust wars should not be won.

You are as much the enemy of the United States as the terrorists who wish to destroy us. By lying about the urgency of the alleged WMD threat from Iraq, by starting an unnecessary and unjust war, which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands, and by dramatically increasing anti-American hatred and terrorism around the globe, Bush and his buddies have become the enemy of the United States!

And why? So you can win an election???? It's important that those who support Bush's failed and dangerous policies be removed from power!

You are all traitors and enemies of the State. Bush and his buddies are all traitors and enemies of the State.

If I was George Bush, I'd start rounding up every treasonous Congressman [and Congressfemi-nazi Like Nancy Pelosi] and have them shot. Of course you would. You are far more akin to a Nazi than Pelosi. You would have made a great SS officer.

Then I'd find you and all your treasoness fellow bloggers and add your bodies to the pile of rotting corpses. I'd pour gasoline on them, light a match and sing Christmas Carols and Victory Songs, dance in the streets and then go finish this war unencumbered by anti-American scum who had no sense of patriotism, perseverance or propriety. :BillyBob: Spoken like a true American NeoNazi, complete with your misguided patriotism, perseverance and propriety.

[Delmar]

Invading Iraq was not necessary for fighting global terrorism. In fact, invading Iraq dramatically increased the threat of terrorism against America. Really bad move on the part of Bush.

Terrorism will never be defeated. And, other than brief local reductions, it will not be significantly reduced by military means.

To reduce the unnecessary deaths of our brave troops.

To reduce the unnecessary deaths of thousands more Iraqis.

To reduce the threat of terrorism everywhere.

Those are good reasons for a timetable.

Bush did that by invading Iraq.

Our "war effort" is tragically misguided.

Bush did that by unnecessarily invading Iraq.

Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq emboldened people to become terrorists who would not otherwise have become terrorists. As long as we think in black and white terms of "good guys" (us) and "bad guys (the enemy), terrorism will not be reduced.

Unjust wars should not be won.

By lying about the urgency of the alleged WMD threat from Iraq, by starting an unnecessary and unjust war, which resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands, and by dramatically increasing anti-American hatred and terrorism around the globe, Bush and his buddies have become the enemy of the United States!

It's important that those who support Bush's failed and dangerous policies be removed from power!

Bush and his buddies are all traitors and enemies of the State.

Of course you would. You are far more akin to a Nazi than Pelosi. You would have made a great SS officer.

Spoken like a true American NeoNazi, complete with your misguided patriotism, perseverance and propriety.
Is anyone else as tired of this crappy old thread as I am?

[BillyBob]

Yep.

[`Love.]

By not doing what he did.

WHY AREN'T YOU PRESIDENT!?!?! I CAN FEEL THE WISDOM EMINATING FROM YOUR BODY!!! I SEE THE LIGHT!!! I SEE THE LIGHT!!!

:rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

Is anyone else as tired of this crappy old thread as I am? I'm tired of you Righties ignoring the message, demonizing the messenger, and mouthing off, pretending that you have refuted my logic, when you haven't even come close to doing so.

[Skeptic]

WHY AREN'T YOU PRESIDENT!?!?! I CAN FEEL THE WISDOM EMINATING FROM YOUR BODY!!! I SEE THE LIGHT!!! I SEE THE LIGHT!!! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Bush lacks the wisdom to run the country. Finally, a majority of Americans are seeing the light and rejecting Bush's failed policies.

His policies have amounted to one failure after another. The largest being starting an unnecessary war, which has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of many thousands of innocent people, as well as our brave troops, and has dramatically increased anti-American hatred around the world.

Since hatred is a major cause of terrorism, Bush's actions have increased the risk of future threats to America!

[koban]

WHY AREN'T YOU PRESIDENT!?!?! I CAN FEEL THE WISDOM EMINATING FROM YOUR BODY!!! I SEE THE LIGHT!!! I SEE THE LIGHT!!!

:rolleyes:


:darwinsm:

[koban]

I'm tired of you Righties ignoring the message, demonizing the messenger, and mouthing off, pretending that you have refuted my logic, when you haven't even come close to doing so.



Awwwww....


Poor little Skreppie, everybody's ignoring his message!

:taoist:

:baby:


Buck up Skreppie, the sun will come out tomorrow and it will be a beautiful new day! :D

[Zimfan]

Maybe even something better than the sun!

The beer'll come out to-mor-row___
Bet your bottom dollar
That tomorrow__ there'll be booze___

Just thinking about tomorrow___
Clears away the dts and the shakes
'Til there's none.

When I'm stuck with a day that's gray and lonely__
I just stick out my chin and grin and say:

Oh, the beer'll come out to-mor-row___
So you got to hang on till tomorrow
come what may__
Tomorrow, tomorrow, I get sloshed tomorrow

It's only a day away___

The beer'll come out to-mor-row,___
bet your bot-tom dol-lar
that to-mor-row___ there'll be booze!

Jus' think-ing a-bout___ to-mor-row___
clears a-way the dts and the shakes___
till there's none.

When I'm stuck__ with a day that's gray and lone-ly___
I just stick__ out my chin and grin and say:

Oh! the beer'll come out_____ to-mor-row.
Oh! I got to hang on till to-mor-row
come what may!

To-mor-row, to-mor-row, I get sloshed to-mor-row.
It's only a day away!______

[koban]

:cheers:


Can we throw our empties at Skreppie? :chuckle:

[Zimfan]

:thumb:

:cheers:

[Frank Ernest]

Awwwww....


Poor little Skreppie, everybody's ignoring his message!

:taoist:

:baby:


Buck up Skreppie, the sun will come out tomorrow and it will be a beautiful new day! :D
Not for :skeptic::duh:. His world is a Hell of someone else's (so he thinks) making. In the scatalogical world, he would be known as a "floater."

[Vaquero45]

I'm tired of you Righties ignoring the message,
The message is wrong.

demonizing the messenger,
The messenger is wrong.


and mouthing off,
If we didn't entertain ourselves by ridiculing you, we couldn't stand to keep conversing with you liberals at all.


pretending that you have refuted my logic,
Did you use logic somewhere?

when you haven't even come close to doing so.
We haven't come close to finding any logic to refute in your arguements.

[BillyBob]

I'm tired of you Righties ignoring the message, demonizing the messenger, and mouthing off, pretending that you have refuted my logic, when you haven't even come close to doing so.

:baby:

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: & :rotfl:

:mock::skeptic::duh:

[koban]

Not for :skeptic::duh:. His world is a Hell of someone else's (so he thinks) making. In the scatalogical world, he would be known as a "floater."



Are you suggesting we flush him? :chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

Are you suggesting we flush him? :chuckle:
:comeout:

[Skeptic]

-- IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0
Pre-war evidence of WMD: 0
Pre-war intelligence community doubts about WMD: Plenty!
Pre-war doubts re: WMD acknowledged by Bush: 0
WMDs found in Iraq: 0
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0

Estimated overall strength of home grown insurgency (June '05): 15,000 - 20,000
Estimated number of foreign fighters in Iraq (June '05): 750 - 1000
Foreign fighters in detainee prison population (Jan 21, '05): 224
Source (http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/indexarchive.htm)

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Bush's unnecessary invasion dramatically increased terrorism!
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops unnecessarily dead: 2,130
U.S. troops unnecessarily wounded: 15,704
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Unnecessary deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 27,354 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 wounded (thru March '05) - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0

Who voted for Iraq's constitution? Not Sunnis! :nono:
Who is adequately represented in Iraq's army & police? Not Sunnis! :nono:
A sign of progress in Iraq? Not death squads and torture chambers. :nono:
Iraqi free press? Not when paid for by the Pentagon! :nono:
Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: No, ... not yet! :nono:

Should Bush be impeached? Yes!
Will Bush be impeached? Not as long as Right-Wing fanatics are in power!

[koban]

:vomit:





:Letsargu:

[Skeptic]

The truth is sickening, isn't it ko:blabla:.

[koban]

I never see it coming out of you, :skeptic::duh:

[Skeptic]

I never see it coming out of you, skeptic You are just too proud to admit you're wrong.

:mock: ko:blabla:

And you have not presented any good evidence that you're right. :loser:

[koban]

:darwinsm:

[Skeptic]

Published on Monday, December 5, 2005 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer
Mr. Bush, Have I Got An Exit Strategy For You
by Gus R. Stelzer

Despite much talk about an exit strategy from the Iraq quagmire in which our nation is embroiled, the No. 1 exit strategy has not been proposed. Let me fill that void. First you have a right to know where I'm coming from.

When I reached the legal voting age of 21 in 1936, I voted for Republican Alfred Landon against Franklin D. Roosevelt. I continued voting Republican through 1980, when I founded a PAC in San Diego with my own money to help Ronald Reagan defeat Jimmy Carter.

But I didn't vote for Reagan in 1984 because of his misguided trade and fiscal policies.

Whereas the United States enjoyed a $28 billion trade surplus and only $700 billion in federal debt in the previous 36 years, in eight years Reagan piled up $1.042 trillion in trade deficits and $1.692 trillion in federal debt. That was 186 percent more than all 39 prior presidents.

I haven't voted for a Republican or Democrat candidate since because I have no desire to vote for the lesser of two evils. I retired in 1976 as a senior executive of General Motors, with responsibility for more than 35,000 employees, and have been a member of the World Affairs Council, the Institute for the Americas at the University of California, the Advisory Board of the School of Education at the University of San Diego, a Rotary Club president, etc. I've traveled widely and lived in many states.

Any CEO of a corporation who screwed up as many things as George W. Bush would have been fired by its board of directors. Here's a few:

- Invasion of Iraq, which is the biggest strategic blunder and scandal in U.S. history. Saddam Hussein never initiated a belligerent act of aggression or terrorism against us. The buildup to that war was based on fabrications, deception and lies.

- Death of 2,100 U.S. soldiers, wounding 15,000 more, and the death of 30,000 innocent Iraqi men, women and children.

- Immoral and unconstitutional trade policies that caused $2.824 trillion in trade deficits in just five years.

- The worst fiscal performance in our history, piling up $2.472 trillion in added federal debt in five years en route to a major economic collapse.

- Tax policies that are an insult to working people who make dividends possible but who are required to pay a higher marginal tax rate than those who collect dividends without working.

- Foreign policies that have alienated most of the rest of the world. - A misguided attempt to turn future Social Security pensions over to Wall Street.

In typical arrogance, Bush said we must stay the course in the Iraq war, which means continuing his tragic record while killing and wounding more U.S. soldiers. That has no more credibility than to say a fox should be put in charge of maintaining order in a hen house after he has just created mayhem therein. Earlier this year, Terri Schiavo lay in a permanent coma connected to a feeding tube. Her husband said she would have wanted that tube removed. But Republican members of Congress passed a resolution to maintain the tube, causing Bush to fly from his ranch in Texas to Washington to sign that legislation. As his pen was poised to sign the document, Bush said, "If there is an error in this matter, it is best to err on the side of life." Why didn't Bush make that same judgment in early 2003 when millions of Americans protested against a possible invasion of Iraq, as did many foreign leaders? Bush had no qualms about killing and wounding thousands of soldiers and innocent civilians. In view of his miserable record, his arrogant lack of good judgment and his failure to understand the gravity of his record, President Bush (and Vice President Dick Cheney) should be shown the exit door with a proviso to never darken the Oval Office again. That should be exit strategy No. 1! I was a Republican, but never a knee-jerk Republican.

Gus R. Stelzer lives in Mill Creek, Washington.

source (http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1205-30.htm)

[BillyBob]

:cow:

[`Love.]

-- LOVE'S IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0...Uh-huh, you believe that Skeptic.
Pre-war evidence of WMD: Oh, nothing, just Saddam having 2 months to hide anything.
Pre-war intelligence community doubts about WMD: Plenty: A.K.A Skeptic and his mom.
Pre-war doubts re: WMD acknowledged by Bush: Who knows what that crazy coot has?
WMDs found in Iraq: With 2 months, I could hide America.
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0-"Tell that to the people who were in the World Trade Center."
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0-"HAHAHAHA! You don't know who Saddam Hussien is, do you?"

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Bush's unnecessary invasion dramatically increased terrorism! OH MY GOD! THAT MEANS HE'S WAY OFF TRACK, RIGHT!?!
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops who died protecting freedom and America: 2,130
U.S. troops wounded protecting freedom and America: 15,704
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 27,354 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 wounded (thru March '05) - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

The above numbers are obviously smaller than Saddam Hussien's previous status quo for innocent deaths.

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0, As it should be, since there were none.

Who voted for Iraq's constitution? Not the Sunnis who enjoy getting their fingernails torn off by Saddam's officials. :loser:
Who is adequately represented in Iraq's army & police?What?
A sign of progress in Iraq? Uh....yeah! DUH!
Iraqi free press? Who cares?
Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: Rome wasn't built in a day, you impatient liberals.
Should Bush be impeached? Hell, no! Who will take his place? Hillary Clinton? She could intimidate our enemies because she has larger man parts than they do!!!!
Will Bush be impeached? No, because that would be stupid.

[koban]

-- LOVE'S IRAQ CHECK --

Pre-war meaningful ties with al-Qaeda: 0...Uh-huh, you believe that Skeptic.
Pre-war evidence of WMD: Oh, nothing, just Saddam having 2 months to hide anything.
Pre-war intelligence community doubts about WMD: Plenty: A.K.A Skeptic and his mom.
Pre-war doubts re: WMD acknowledged by Bush: Who knows what that crazy coot has?
WMDs found in Iraq: With 2 months, I could hide America.
Imminent threats from Iraq: 0-"Tell that to the people who were in the World Trade Center."
Justifiable reasons for invading Iraq: 0-"HAHAHAHA! You don't know who Saddam Hussien is, do you?"

Number of acts of international terrorism in 2004: 651
this is the highest yearly total since 1987.
Bush's unnecessary invasion dramatically increased terrorism! OH MY GOD! THAT MEANS HE'S WAY OFF TRACK, RIGHT!?!
Source (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html), source (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/nctc2004.pdf)

U.S. troops who died protecting freedom and America: 2,130
U.S. troops wounded protecting freedom and America: 15,704
Source (http://icasualties.org/oif/), source (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/)

Deaths of innocent men, women and children:
At least 27,354 - probably far greater!
At least 42,500 wounded (thru March '05) - probably far greater!
Source (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php)

The above numbers are obviously smaller than Saddam Hussien's previous status quo for innocent deaths.

U.S. government officials held responsible for unnecessary war deaths in Iraq: 0, As it should be, since there were none.

Who voted for Iraq's constitution? Not the Sunnis who enjoy getting their fingernails torn off by Saddam's officials. :loser:
Who is adequately represented in Iraq's army & police?What?
A sign of progress in Iraq? Uh....yeah! DUH!
Iraqi free press? Who cares?
Iraqi Freedom and Democracy: Rome wasn't built in a day, you impatient liberals.
Should Bush be impeached? Hell, no! Who will take his place? Hillary Clinton? She could intimidate our enemies because she has larger man parts than they do!!!!
Will Bush be impeached? No, because that would be stupid.


That was great 'Love, but I find this a lot faster:

:mock::skeptic::duh:

[`Love.]

That was great 'Love, but I find this a lot faster:

:mock::skeptic::duh:

Ooh! Can I join? :mock::mock::skeptic::duh:

(How convenient the smiley's name is skeptic. :crackup: )

[Skeptic]

:yawn: You folks are in denial. :loser:

[koban]

:yawn: You folks are in denial. :loser:



Yep! :chuckle:


I vigorously deny that :skeptic: shows any signs of intelligence!

[BillyBob]

That was great 'Love, but I find this a lot faster:

:mock::skeptic::duh:

:darwinsm:

[`Love.]

:yawn: You folks are in denial. :loser:

You know denial well, don't you?

I'm sure for a week after the election ended you danced in the street screaming that Kerry had won.

[Frank Ernest]

"It wasn't the exit polls that were wrong, it was the voters."

[Skeptic]

War Crimes Made Easy
How the Bush Administration Legalized Intelligence Deceptions, Assassinations, and Aggressive War (http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=41419)

[Frank Ernest]

:darwinsm: :loser:

[Skeptic]

:darwinsm: :loser: Your side is losing.

:mock: Frankie fundie fanatic ( :loser: )

[Delmar]

Your side is losing.

Then the people of Iraq are doomed!

[BillyBob]

Pardon me, fellas. I'm gonna post my little disclaimer here now so I will have it at the ready for Skeptic later on in this thread. :D




How many times do you really expect us to address the same, old, tired posts of yours? We have gone way past the point of discussing these same, old, tired topics, Skeptic. We have proven you wrong at every turn yet you ignore our responses and continue posting the same, old, tired drivel.

At this stage of the game, I am just going to copy and paste this response to all of your posts as it will be equally applicable to all of them.

[BillyBob]

Carry on! :chuckle:

[Delmar]

Pardon me, fellas. I'm gonna post my little disclaimer here now so I will have it at the ready for Skeptic later on in this thread. :D




How many times do you really expect us to address the same, old, tired posts of yours? We have gone way past the point of discussing these same, old, tired topics, Skeptic. We have proven you wrong at every turn yet you ignore our responses and continue posting the same, old, tired drivel.

At this stage of the game, I am just going to copy and paste this response to all of your posts as it will be equally applicable to all of them.
BillyBob
Why not Just add it to your signature?

[BillyBob]

:chuckle:

[Frank Ernest]

:idea:

[Skeptic]

Then the people of Iraq are doomed! The will fare better after we leave. Yes, the civil war will continue for a while, but once the Shiites realize that they are going to be on their own, they will get serious about negotiating with their Sunni citizens.

[BillyBob]

What is it with you commies? You want the rest of the world to negotiate and compromise and flat out surrender but when it comes to your own political party, you want to dominate exclusively.

Liberals suck.

[Frank Ernest]

The will fare better after we leave. Yes, the civil war will continue for a while, but once the Shiites realize that they are going to be on their own, they will get serious about negotiating with their Sunni citizens.
:darwinsm: They will kill them all, you idiot! Saddam Hussein is Sunni and he oppressed, repressed, tortured and killed Shi'ites for close to forty years. You think that if we leave (right now), the Shi'ites are going to forget that, kiss and make up? You think the Sunnis are going to extend the olive branch and let bygones be bygones? Sunnis also make up the majority of the Baath Party which is now in disgrace and repudiation (except for the loony who runs Syria).

Where did you learn anything about geopolitics? Miss Whazername's 3rd-grade class on doily construction? :ninjassy:

[BillyBob]

:box:

[Frank Ernest]

:box:
:darwinsm:
:hammer: :zoomin:

[koban]

The will fare better after we leave. Yes, the civil war will continue for a while, but once the Shiites realize that they are going to be on their own, they will get serious about negotiating with their Sunni citizens.


Is this what you see in your crystal ball, Skreppie?

[Skeptic]

They will kill them all, you idiot! Saddam Hussein is Sunni and he oppressed, repressed, tortured and killed Shi'ites for close to forty years. You think that if we leave (right now), the Shi'ites are going to forget that, kiss and make up? You think the Sunnis are going to extend the olive branch and let bygones be bygones? Sunnis also make up the majority of the Baath Party which is now in disgrace and repudiation (except for the loony who runs Syria). Are you suggesting that the U.S. kill off all the Sunnis for the Shiites, so they can live happily ever after?

If we don't leave, and we don't kill off all the Sunnis for the Shiites, a what point will the Shiites no longer be interested in killing off all of the Sunnis - or vise versa for that matter?