FALLUJAH murder pictures...GRAPHIC(democrats and whiney-assed liberals beware)

You, sir, are flat out an idiot.

Now, I don't wish to get into name calling. You can call me a guinea and it'll be even. I gave you a chance to explain yourself, and I have come to the conclusion that you are either not bright, or you are overwhelmingly and figuratively blind.

>>>Last time I checked, the public doesn't get the same intelligence, and its the public that makes the congress do what it wants.<<<

Last time I checked, Congress saw the same intel. as Bush. Last time I checked, Clinton laid out a far better case about Saddam's WMD than Bush.

>>>You act like Saddam had control over his country.<<<

Umm... yea, that's what dictators have... control over their country. Total, complete, absolute control.

I'm not saying we should rely on French or German intelligence. But if you will accuse someone of misleading, understand, EVERYONE THOUGHT THIS. You claim the UN is a waste... well... should we ignore the UN? The UN stated Saddam was in violation 333 times. Yet, BUSH was the only liar.

If you can't answer these questions, this debate's over.
 
Anybody that sponsors ANY FORM OF TERRORISM is a threat to the United States. If al-Qaeda can attack us, Hamas can. If al-Qaeda can attack us, Hezbollah can.

And Saddam did have al-Qaeda links. Must I go into depth?
 
Originally posted by zarquiekia
It is no secret that Saddam hates Israel. He support any one fighting Israel and Saddam himself have sent bombs to destroy Israel but Saddam was no threat to the United States nor did Saddam support any terrorist groups that were no afraid to strike America.

All the evidence have been proven that Saddam had no WMD-no link to Al Qeada, and no link to 9/11!

Is Isreal not an allie? If it is is it not a responsability we should take upon our selfs to help rid Isreal an enemy. And support of Terror is support of terror. There is no middle ground. Saddam supported terror, end of story. Bush doctrine states that he is open to attack. He was attacked don't like the new foriegn policy well get used to it because Bush will be around for 4 more years and I'm pretty sure in '08 someone from his cabniet will be in office. You dems had your chance to run this country. You failed and invited 9-11. Now let the party that means buissness handle your mess.:D
 
Until Democrats conclude they will follow the doctrine of preemption, they have no business being in power in a post-9/11 world. There's a reason Republicans control the White House, Pentagon, courts, Congress, states, churches...
 
Bush has help Al Qaeda with its' recriutment. It is all over the media that Al Qaeda was just a small fragment but since the war on Iraq, Al Qaeda has evolved into a worldwide organization and western intel don't know who or where they are!

Experts are saying if we capture or kill Osama, Al Qaeda is stronger with or without Osama.
 
So? Was recruitment better with hundreds of terrorist camps, al-Qaeda operatives on the loose, and millions of funds coming to them? What about after attacking us in 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998, and 2000 and us doing nothing?

The only way to get rid of the recruits is to establish free governments in the Middle East. That will win hearts and minds. If that isn't our strategy, the only option is to not fight, because it'll "recruit terrorists."
 
Thanks for calling me an idiot while I actually use facts to back my opinions and you might want to use proper english when calling someone an idiot.

Last time I checked, Congress saw the same intel. as Bush. Last time I checked, Clinton laid out a far better case about Saddam's WMD than Bush.

I'm not a Clinton cocksucker like most dems. Its possible that he tried to distract the country with Iraq WMD during Lewinski, but its also possible that Clinton destroyed Saddam's WMD programs.

Umm... yea, that's what dictators have... control over their country. Total, complete, absolute control.

Lets see if you can connect the dots. During the Gulf War, Iraqis were surrendering by the thousands. When Bush I said that he'd support an Iraqi revolt, they revolted and were put down. During this current war, the only real resistance U.S. forces met was at baghdad with Saddam's own army. Saddam's scientists weren't developing WMD, even though he oredered them to. The Kurds were pretty independent, the Shi'a weren't linked with Saddam. My conclusion is that the people weren't loyal to Saddam and he really didn't have absolute control.

I'm not saying we should rely on French or German intelligence. But if you will accuse someone of misleading, understand, EVERYONE THOUGHT THIS. You claim the UN is a waste... well... should we ignore the UN? The UN stated Saddam was in violation 333 times.

I would say we should ignore the UN, but unfortunately most people wouldn't agree with me. So, even though Saddam violated the UN law, the UN voted that he shouldn't be punished.

Yet, BUSH was the only liar.

I didn't say that, there's also Cheney, Rummy, Condi, and a coerced Powell.:cool:
 
Bush preemptive strike was not a success. Bush liberated people who hate America. It is very clear that Iraq is a hostile country and no longer a liberated country!

Bush preemptive strike was against the wrong country! Iraq is not guilty! No WMD! No link to Al Qeada! No link to 9/11! Bush waged war against the wrong country! Face IT!

We don't need to use preemptive policy! We need to protect our borders and the people within them! That is something Bush has failed miserable at!
 
Powell admitted to NATO that the information he presented before the UN was not trueful.
 
>>>Bush preemptive strike was against the wrong country! Iraq is not guilty! No WMD! No link to Al Qeada! No link to 9/11! Bush waged war against the wrong country! Face IT!<<<

We did wage war against Afghanistan, though. No WMD? Who thought otherwise? Name a nation in Europe that didn't think Saddam had WMD.

No al-Qaeda link? Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Ansar al-Islam? Hezbollah? Must I get into the al-Qaeda link in depth? Because I will if you want.

No link to 9/11? Again... so?


>>>We don't need to use preemptive policy! We need to protect our borders and the people within them! That is something Bush has failed miserable at!<<<

Yeah, Bush failed at protecting use. Ever hear of Jose Padilla and Iyman Faris? Ever hear of the Patriot Act? 77% of Americans trust Bush to prevent a terrorist attack over Kerry, a man who wanted cut funds in intelligence before and after terrorist attacks in the 1990s, (which his Democartic leader Clinton didn't respond to).
 
No, he said it may have been false. He didn't say "we lied." He said "we might have been wrong." "We" as in "the planet."
 
Bush has lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqis! Bush was so glad to be the "war president" without a plan for recontruction of Iraq. Iraq has been nothing but choas and more and more innocent women and children being killed! All because Bush wanted to go down in history at the 'war president'! Now, he will go down in history as the most pathetic president that did not have common sense to plan a war and recontruction!
 
77% of Iraqis have a positive view about America and 8 out of 10 say their lives will be better next year.

In fact, Bush has a better approval rating in Iraq than he does in America. That's saying something about Dems.

In five years, look at Iraq. Are you hoping for a failure there?
 
Just curious... when Iraq is a free society, do you think that will inflame or reduce radicalism for future generations of Muslims in the Middle East?
 
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi? Ansar al-Islam? Hezbollah? Must I get into the al-Qaeda link in depth? Because I will if you want.

Actually, I think I'd like to see this link, especially when people that are experts on Iraq and terrorism say there is no link. Is al-Zarqawi by chance the guy that Powell talked about in his presentation. And on your in depth link, I'd also like to know what parts of the country they were in.
 
Originally posted by zarquiekia
Bush preemptive strike was not a success. Bush liberated people who hate America. It is very clear that Iraq is a hostile country and no longer a liberated country!

Bush preemptive strike was against the wrong country! Iraq is not guilty! No WMD! No link to Al Qeada! No link to 9/11! Bush waged war against the wrong country! Face IT!

We don't need to use preemptive policy! We need to protect our borders and the people within them! That is something Bush has failed miserable at!

That is a policy of preemption. in oreder to police a free society to the abbility where we will stop all terrorists is mind boggeling, we would seice to be a free society and you would be tracked everywere you went. The fight is in the middle east, that is where we need to go, protecting our borders wont do anything, time is an enemy of the weak, because your enemy only gets stronger. Preemption is the best policy to fight terror, we need to attack these people where they live, because guess what they need state sponsership or at least safe haven. If we attack everycountry that supports terror, the ones we don't attack will give up and condone to the US will(ie Lybia). It works, don't be a pussy the oceans don't protect us anymore. War is a fact of Life on planet earth. We are no where near a Utopia and we will never be near a utopia. Vilence is the only way to slove problems, i'm sorry but our moms' were wrong.
 
Originally posted by zarquiekia
Powell admitted to NATO that the information he presented before the UN was not trueful.

evidence, link, qoute?
 
Bottomline: Saddam did not have WMD since 1995 and Clinton had the factories bombed. Bush lied about the WMD! Bush knew he lied that is the reason for so many renaming of the invasion: 1. disarm Saddam; 2. Iraq had terrorists; 3. liberate the Iraqi people. Bush wanted to be a hero and, now, he looks like a fool!
 

Forum List

Back
Top