spillmind
Member
- Thread starter
- #21
kentucky fried mcdonalds:
i haven't even BEGAN to hawk, but since you are on the verge of personal attacks, it may start. sure, people can argue your point that we knew civil war was coming. but your point there contradicts this last line:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_19
...now that's right up there with your other answers. at least you keep in theme! got a reasonable answer in there somewhere?Hey how about we quit spending money on social programs i.e medicare and S.S. Oh wait no we caint do that because that would mean that people would have to take care of themselves....Not in America
if that's what is right, i'd really hate to see WRONG. BTW, looks like our soldiers got attacked today. there goes your theory of the 'insurgents' not targeting the US anymore. honestly, i know you want to believe we are doing something for the right reason. simple fact is, we're going about it all wrong.I support his war because I belive that what we are doing is right.
Okay spilly enough with the phlegm. as I said in my original post to this thread, this article hardly proves your addendum that we are only now considering the possibility of civil war. Can you prove that we haven't?
i haven't even BEGAN to hawk, but since you are on the verge of personal attacks, it may start. sure, people can argue your point that we knew civil war was coming. but your point there contradicts this last line:
i guess we saw this coming, but it can't possibly happen? is that what you're saying? there will be much MUCH more death in iraq to come. don't believe me (or the track record)??? sit back and watch. i won't debate the crystal ball any longer. the news today speaks for itself:As KCmcD has put it, with what army do you expect this to happen?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040217/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_19
this is not praise of a tyrant, but merely a testament to the stability, morally right or wrong as you see it. my interpretation is different from yours, and i can respect that.A point that has clearly been used in your article to essentially say that the Iraqis were better off under Saddam. Clearly it is in praise of a tyrant.
what continues to crack me up is how you same people who drew this worst case scenario for iraq last year are now projecting the best possible case scenario for stability in iraq. the only consistency there is the basis outside of reality. let's see these attacks stop, eh? let's bet on it!!! i'll take your money any day. it's a matter of simple common sense.ah yes, here is the crux of why you are wrong. The current bombing is not related to Shia-Sunni tensions but a foreign jihad attempting to bring about its cataclysm to bring it into existence. If that effort is exposed, it will be totally unconvincing in its efforts to cause infighting.
oh boy another third grade cheap shot it only reflects on you, man. i guess zraqawi organized today's attack? now who exactly has been sitting next to the microwave too long? sheesh.Let's be fair. In the letter Zarqawi claims responsibility for 25 suicide bombings that have occured in Iraq in the past months. Clearly that means he represents a majority of the terrorism which has so far succeeded in casualties. Therefore he is a significant voice. You can't deny it even with your own reynolds factory working 24/7