Who are you voting for, for President?

[yamahonkawazuki]

actually TG we were NOT in iraq until 03 ish, which IIRC was after 9/11/01, but anyhow. im done with this thread,




and im done with this board, until after jan 09. yall take care, and try not to kill it, mmmkay   gracias, danke, thank you, ive enjoyed it here  

[trumpetguy]

actually TG we were NOT in iraq until 03 ish, which IIRC was after 9/11/01, but anyhow. im done with this thread,




and im done with this board, until after jan 09. yall take care, and try not to kill it, mmmkay   gracias, danke, thank you, ive enjoyed it here  

I don't understand what you're saying.  Of course we went into Iraq in 2003 but we were never attacked by Iraq.  That's my point.

[bettingpython]

and im done with this board, until after jan 09. yall take care, and try not to kill it, mmmkay   gracias, danke, thank you, ive enjoyed it here  

Yama don't go, I'm sorry. Was it because I made fun of HD. I promise I will keep my "Liberal" views to myself.

[frankieG]

ya even if you don't have a gs you are certainly welcome here . who else is going to post completely irrelevant info that no one in their right mind would bother looking up?

[quiktaco]

Do you have a logical cell in your brain?

1.  Iraq never attacked us.  Never.  Even the liar-in-chief Bush admitted as much (after he lied us there in the first place).

2.  If you admit that when we leave they pop back up, what is the point of our being there?

"They're lucky we didn't nuke them, indeed."  What a maroon.

I know Iraq never attacked us.  However, terrorist fled to Iraq after we invaded Afghanistan.  Those terrorists along with Hussein (a terrorist in his own country), is good enough reason to follow them.  When in the middle of a War on Terror.

However, you probably idealize Hugo Chavez and Che Guevara, and see them as heroes, not mass murdering terrorists, also.  So you probably think that Hussein was a great man as well, huh?

[frankieG]

Jesus H Christ are you deluded...Iraq, if anything, before the invasion was keeping the terrorist's down by killing them and denying the supply lines .  how did they flee to iraq? they would have to cross iran.  iraq was all about daddys war, getting oil and putting the neo conservative middle eastern policy into play.  which worked real well did it not?  not another vietnam bush said back then.  he is right...it is worse and costing us more.

[quiktaco]

What is Jesus's middle name?  What's this H?

[quiktaco]

Yep, no terrorists in Iraq...oh wait!  There were!


THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

The photographs and documents on Iraqi training camps come from a collection of some 2 million "exploitable items" captured in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan. They include handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes, videotapes, compact discs, floppy discs, and computer hard drives. Taken together, this collection could give U.S.
intelligence officials and policymakers an inside look at the activities of the former Iraqi regime in the months and years before the Iraq war.

The discovery of the information on jihadist training camps in Iraq would seem to have two major consequences: It exposes the flawed assumptions of the experts and U.S. intelligence officials who told us for years that a secularist like Saddam Hussein would never work with Islamic radicals, any more than such jihadists would work with an infidel like the Iraqi dictator. It also reminds us that valuable information remains buried in the mountain of documents recovered in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past four years.

Nearly three years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, only 50,000 of these 2 million "exploitable items" have been thoroughly examined. That's 2.5 percent. Despite the hard work of the individuals assigned to the "DOCEX" project, the process is not moving quickly enough, says Michael Tanji, a former Defense Intelligence Agency official who helped lead the document exploitation effort for 18 months. "At this rate," he says, "if we continue to approach DOCEX in a linear fashion, our great-grandchildren will still be sorting through this stuff."

Most of the 50,000 translated documents relate directly to weapons of mass destruction programs and scientists, since David Kay and his Iraq Survey Group--who were among the first to analyze the finds--considered those items top priority. "At first, if it wasn't WMD, it wasn't translated. It wasn't exploited," says a former military intelligence officer who worked on the documents in Iraq.

This article continues onto a second page at http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp if you'd like to keep reading.

[quiktaco]

According to the President of the United States George W. Bush and former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Tony Blair, the reasons for the invasion were "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people."

These are ALL of the reasons.
1. We ended Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism by ending Saddam Hussein.  Check
2. We freed the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein.  Check
3.  We stopped the development of WMD.  (proven that they were in development by the last article I posted).  Check

Yes, WMD weren't found, but once they finished developing them, they would have been.  I don't get why there's all of this, 'it's daddy's war', and 'it's all for the oil', and 'it's the neocon conspiracy'.  This war has been a success.  The troops have done an amazing job.  Just because it's in an area where we get our oil from doesn't mean it's for oil.  And wouldn't we have been fighting Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Iran if it were for oil?  And so what if his father was fighting against the same threat?  Just because he fought against something, doesn't mean that it can never be fought against again.

[trumpetguy]

Quiktaco,

I'm done debating truth and fiction with you.  I can't find any source to confirm that story other than other rightwing echo sites.  I did find plenty of evidence that discredits the author.  Notice that no sources are named and that there is no documentary evidence -- only "people who have seen the evidence said,..."  If this had been a whistle-blowing article, GOP hate radio jocks would be shouting "treason" at the release of information in classified material.  This is propaganda, pure and simple.  It is cleverly written in such a way that everything can be denied if and when proven false.

If there had been movement of terrorists to Iraq from Afghanistan, our satellites would have seen it and we would have attacked Iraq in 2002 or 2001.  We can count hairs on a gnat's ass from space.  And it might have even made the news.

Your "reasons" for attacking Iran are bogus.  Bush did give several reasons, one after another, as each of his previous reasons was proven to be a lie.  Those are not the first reasons he gave when he lied us there.  AND, most importantly, none of the reasons was constitutional -- they did not involve defending OUR country or honoring a treaty.  But the constitution matters little to Bush, who was more interested in padding the pockets of his rich homies.  Mission Accomplished there (check).

Iraq never attacked us.  We invaded a sovereign country based on an unconstitutional doctrine, killing somewhere between 150,000 and 1,000,000 civilians, 4500 of our finest, maiming 20,000 to 30,000 US troops and spending almost a TRILLION US taxpayer dollars of borrowed money.  For what?  I don't care if Saddam was evil -- we have INSTALLED and supported much more evil dictators than he.  There has been nothing done in Iraq that was worth even one American soldier's death.

One last question.  Why aren't you there if you support this "War on Terror?"  Or is your contribution, like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld during Vietnam, better served sipping cappuccino and calling people Marxists and Communists?  If you support the big war, get your ass over there.  Talk is cheap.  My stepson has put his life on the line in this war.  He has a wife and a son.  I can tell you that when the news says soldiers died, every one of them is somebody's son, husband, or brother.  And there's not a damned thing worth them dying for over there.

I will not respond to any more of your posts, lies or not.  It is clear that you are not capable of separating fact from fiction and that you unquestioningly accept things posted on rightwing sites.  The brainwashing has been very effective.  I ask that you think, that's all, before accepting the garbage and lies that are out there.

[spc]

Speaking of evil dictators.....anyone hear that Mugabe has apparently agreed to share power???  I don't trust it, he's gonna have the other guy killed and shaZam! on his grave.........

[jserio]

Speaking of evil dictators.....anyone hear that Mugabe has apparently agreed to share power???  I don't trust it, he's gonna have the other guy killed and shaZam! on his grave.........

hmm...who is Mugabe???   

[spc]

Google is your friend.

[jserio]

oh...zimbabwe. haven't seen anything on the news about it. must not be a big deal yet??? or maybe i'm tuning in at the wrong time. 

[spc]

Not a big deal yet.......until he has the guy killed and everything goes back to exactly the way it was and eventually we decide to 'bring democracy' to them too. 

[quiktaco]

Quiktaco,

I'm done debating truth and fiction with you.  I can't find any source to confirm that story other than other rightwing echo sites.  I did find plenty of evidence that discredits the author.  Notice that no sources are named and that there is no documentary evidence -- only "people who have seen the evidence said,..."  If this had been a whistle-blowing article, GOP hate radio jocks would be shouting "treason" at the release of information in classified material.  This is propaganda, pure and simple.  It is cleverly written in such a way that everything can be denied if and when proven false.

I know, it's really tough to debate truth and fiction.  The same feelings go from me to you.  You think you're right, I think I'm right.  Doesn't matter, I give sources that support me, and you give neocon conspiracy theories to support you.  I don't see anywhere that the site I posted was a rightwing site.  Why do you say that?

Also, if you don't want to debate with me, then why did you come into the thread that I started, and continue to debate with me?

If there had been movement of terrorists to Iraq from Afghanistan, our satellites would have seen it and we would have attacked Iraq in 2002 or 2001.  We can count hairs on a gnat's ass from space.  And it might have even made the news.

The article stated that the terrorists had been in Iraq for years preceding the war...I think it said since 1999.  When these terrorists were moving, they break apart...they don't stay in a formation and march to Iraq with tanks and whatnot.  And if you saw that we could see the hairs on a gnat's ass, then why weren't we following Osama to see exactly where he went when he fled?  I'm sure we could see the hairs, but it doesn't work like it does in a bond movie.

Your "reasons" for attacking Iran are bogus.  Bush did give several reasons, one after another, as each of his previous reasons was proven to be a lie.  Those are not the first reasons he gave when he lied us there.  AND, most importantly, none of the reasons was constitutional -- they did not involve defending OUR country or honoring a treaty.  But the constitution matters little to Bush, who was more interested in padding the pockets of his rich homies.  Mission Accomplished there (check).

These are the official reasons (I believe you were meaning Iraq) that they gave before we went to war.  If you are adding things and subtracting things, then you are not looking at the facts.  You're looking at Liberal propaganda.

Iraq never attacked us.  We invaded a sovereign country based on an unconstitutional doctrine, killing somewhere between 150,000 and 1,000,000 civilians, 4500 of our finest, maiming 20,000 to 30,000 US troops and spending almost a TRILLION US taxpayer dollars of borrowed money.  For what?  I don't care if Saddam was evil -- we have INSTALLED and supported much more evil dictators than he.  There has been nothing done in Iraq that was worth even one American soldier's death.

I never said that they attacked us, I said that they did not.  However, this is no sovereign country.  You are trying to discredit the author of the article I posted, so you won't believe it, however, they had terrorists there, they were training them, and they fled there after Afghanistan.

You care about spending almost a Trillion dollars on defence, but you will be happy to spend about that same amount on pet projects of Obama's, like the World Poverty Act?

Of course a soldiers death is not worth anything, however, these soldiers enlisted for a reason, well knowing what could happen.  It was their choice to join; many of which joined after we had already gone to war. 

One last question.  Why aren't you there if you support this "War on Terror?"  Or is your contribution, like Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld during Vietnam, better served sipping cappuccino and calling people Marxists and Communists?  If you support the big war, get your ass over there.  Talk is cheap.  My stepson has put his life on the line in this war.  He has a wife and a son.  I can tell you that when the news says soldiers died, every one of them is somebody's son, husband, or brother.  And there's not a damned thing worth them dying for over there.

Because I didn't want to, plain and simple.  I went to college, and got married and started a family.  I wasn't drawn to join, just like millions of others.  And no, I don't like coffee either.  I have friends that have been there and back, over and over.  Newly married ones, one new mother that has 3 kids under the age of 4.  Don't even try to twist things to make me sound bad.

I will not respond to any more of your posts, lies or not.  It is clear that you are not capable of separating fact from fiction and that you unquestioningly accept things posted on rightwing sites.  The brainwashing has been very effective.  I ask that you think, that's all, before accepting the garbage and lies that are out there.

I feel the same way.  It is clear that you are not capable of separating fact from fiction and that you unquestioningly accept things posted on leftwing sites.  The brainwashing has been very effective.  I ask that you think, that's all, before accepting the garbage and lies that are out there.

[frankieG]

the weekly standard is a neo conservative magazine that does not report real news and is not independant.  its stories are right up there with the national enquirer.  btw how much time have you spent in iraq? i have been there 3 times in 3 different decades 80's 90's and 00's(whatever).  saddam killed militants and extremests on sight and without trial.  even those related to militants or "possibles" were killed.   

[quiktaco]

Like I've said many times before, I want things that may not be fact pointed out.  Not attacking, but giving reason for.  Maybe this article is incorrect, but Saddam himself is a terrorist, along with his own militants.  He's killed countless people.

I've never been there, never been outside of the country besides down in Mexico. What does that matter?

Anyways, off of the war subject, since this is supposed to be about the presidential race.



What does everyone think about people saying that they trust Palin's experience more than Obama's experience?  It's something like 60% to 40%, don't remember the exact numbers.

[frankieG]

palin is a nut she only gets away with it because she is good looking.   but the more i lean the more my opinion that americans are very stupid and i think they are going to make mccain the next president with the nut bag the next VP.  i hope i am wrong but i am beginning to think i am not.

[quiktaco]

On what grounds are you saying that she's a nut.  I want resources that can be checked out, and some facts about her.  Please share.  If this is just personal comments, then please say that in your post. 

We need to be clear on what is speculation, opinion and fact.  I try to say whenever my comments are my own comments, or I post the source of where I got something from.  Then the subject can be debated further.