How the Times Square terrorists was treated by the terrorists rights focused Obama Ad

[Dr Grump]

Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis, started two major wars, had the 4th largest army in the world and huge oil reserves, meaning unlimited resources. He defied the UN, and was removed and replaced by a democracy. He had nothing to do with 9/11, but Iraq needed a regime change.

Tell me removing a vicious brutal dictator like Saddam was just a racist act?! How fucking stupid does that sound? Tell me you prefer Saddam back in power in Iraq.

And it was STILL none of the US business, UNLESS you admit that the price of world oil was an issue to your society.

There are tyrants, tormentors, thugs and psychopaths running many countries. Why did Saddam get singled out?

BTW, I love the "world's 4th largest army" part that gets bandied about to make out it was some huge, mean-arse, motherfucker army . I always think there should be a couple of caveats attached 1) Most of them were conscripts and 2) a shitload had no loyalty to him, only his Republican Guard did, and even then, some of those units weren't exactly happy with him...

 

[jillian]

I guess so,, cause I'd want to kick the living shit out of them.. no matter what it took.. I still remember those gasoline soaked people jumping from those building.. I'm glad you're tough cause I'm sure as hell not.

yeah, it made lots of sense to attack a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us.
see, idiot, to me, attacking someone brown just to feel better wouldn't seem very effective.

Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis, started two major wars, had the 4th largest army in the world and huge oil reserves, meaning unlimited resources. He defied the UN, and was removed and replaced by a democracy. He had nothing to do with 9/11, but Iraq needed a regime change.

Tell me removing a vicious brutal dictator like Saddam was just a racist act?! How fucking stupid does that sound? Tell me you prefer Saddam back in power in Iraq.

saddam the vicious dictator who we funded and supplied chemical weapons to so he would be our guy in the middle east?

everything you're talking about existed prior to gulf I. there was no point to gulf II.... other than as bush thumping his chest and pretending he was doing something after 9/11.

 

[kyzr]

You see Willow as a bully? I see her as a moron....seriously...not joking either. Dumb as a sack of shit....

i think most bullies are morons.

now let's get this straight,, for the record.. am I the bully and the terrorists are the victims?? somehow I knew it would end up that way.. somehow I just knew.

Hey how about a waterboarding party? We can download everything that clown knows in about 20-seconds.

 

[WillowTree]

You see Willow as a bully? I see her as a moron....seriously...not joking either. Dumb as a sack of shit....

so, you would sit there beside Jill and die,, how noble.. pussy,, but noble,, we shall remember yer nobleness.

Er, no. What I would do is way above your intellectual capability to understand....

well, either show us your superior intellect or stfu..

 

[blu]

So where do Libs draw the line, when is it no longer an ordinary criminal act?

If he tried to detonate a dirty bomb, that count?

If he tried and failed to release small pox in the NY City subway, would that still be a criminal act?

Where do Libs draw the line, if at all?

Do you need to have it spelled out for YOU??? If he were white, if he were old, if he went to a Tea Party.. if he were a Republican,, that's where Jilly would draw the line.. no miranda,, straight to the gallows he would go.. are we clear on the matter now???

nice projection

 

[Dr Grump]

well, either show us your superior intellect or stfu..

To you? I do it every post, but being as dumb as a bag of shit, you wouldn't know when you're getting your arse handed to you on a plate.

All I know is that Matt Groening based his Cletus the Slackjawed Yokel character on you......

 

[WillowTree]

yeah, it made lots of sense to attack a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us.
see, idiot, to me, attacking someone brown just to feel better wouldn't seem very effective.

Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis, started two major wars, had the 4th largest army in the world and huge oil reserves, meaning unlimited resources. He defied the UN, and was removed and replaced by a democracy. He had nothing to do with 9/11, but Iraq needed a regime change.

Tell me removing a vicious brutal dictator like Saddam was just a racist act?! How fucking stupid does that sound? Tell me you prefer Saddam back in power in Iraq.

saddam the vicious dictator who we funded and supplied chemical weapons to so he would be our guy in the middle east?

everything you're talking about existed prior to gulf I. there was no point to gulf II.... other than as bush thumping his chest and pretending he was doing something after 9/11.

EXCEPT FOR HE ATTACKED kUWAIT AND SET THEIR OIL FIELDS AFIRE.. REMEMBER.. THEN THERE WAS THE MATTER OF OIL FOR FOOD BRIBES TO GERMANY AND FRANCE.. STARVED HIS OWN PEOPLE. WHY IS IT YOU LIBRULS ALWAYS SIDE WITH DICATORS? i'M JUST NOT GETTING IT.

so what you are telling me is if we put him in power and made a mistake we should just suck it up and watch the people going through the wood chippers with a shrug of the shoulder,, and never mind the UN sanctions and other stuff is that what you are saying.

 

[WillowTree]

well, either show us your superior intellect or stfu..

To you? I do it every post, but being as dumb as a bag of shit, you wouldn't know when you're getting your arse handed to you on a plate.

All I know is that Matt Groening based his Cletus the Slackjawed Yokel character on you......

tranlation: you got nothing but methane blowing out your arse.

 

[jillian]

Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis, started two major wars, had the 4th largest army in the world and huge oil reserves, meaning unlimited resources. He defied the UN, and was removed and replaced by a democracy. He had nothing to do with 9/11, but Iraq needed a regime change.

Tell me removing a vicious brutal dictator like Saddam was just a racist act?! How fucking stupid does that sound? Tell me you prefer Saddam back in power in Iraq.

saddam the vicious dictator who we funded and supplied chemical weapons to so he would be our guy in the middle east?

everything you're talking about existed prior to gulf I. there was no point to gulf II.... other than as bush thumping his chest and pretending he was doing something after 9/11.

EXCEPT FOR HE ATTACKED kUWAIT AND SET THEIR OIL FIELDS AFIRE.. REMEMBER.. THEN THERE WAS THE MATTER OF OIL FOR FOOD BRIBES TO GERMANY AND FRANCE.. STARVED HIS OWN PEOPLE. WHY IS IT YOU LIBRULS ALWAYS SIDE WITH DICATORS? i'M JUST NOT GETTING IT.

so what you are telling me is if we put him in power and made a mistake we should just suck it up and watch the people going through the wood chippers with a shrug of the shoulder,, and never mind the UN sanctions and other stuff is that what you are saying.

prior to gulf I, cookie. are you suggesting that you go back for a second war just cause the first one wasn't satisfying enough?

i'm telling you that bush's war of choice had nothing to do with 9.11... it was a pointless suck of our treasure and blood.

and your ranting and raving and head exploding won't change that one iota.

 

[blu]

I guess so,, cause I'd want to kick the living shit out of them.. no matter what it took.. I still remember those gasoline soaked people jumping from those building.. I'm glad you're tough cause I'm sure as hell not.

yeah, it made lots of sense to attack a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us.
see, idiot, to me, attacking someone brown just to feel better wouldn't seem very effective.

Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis, started two major wars, had the 4th largest army in the world and huge oil reserves, meaning unlimited resources. He defied the UN, and was removed and replaced by a democracy. He had nothing to do with 9/11, but Iraq needed a regime change.

Tell me removing a vicious brutal dictator like Saddam was just a racist act?! How fucking stupid does that sound? Tell me you prefer Saddam back in power in Iraq.

we should have minded our business, we are not the UNs goon force. it would have saved thousands of american lives, billions of dollars and not stretched our troops thin. we can't even respond to iran now because of iraq, and all iraq has done is give iran another country to run behind the scenes

 

[Dr Grump]

EXCEPT FOR HE ATTACKED kUWAIT AND SET THEIR OIL FIELDS AFIRE.. REMEMBER.. THEN THERE WAS THE MATTER OF OIL FOR FOOD BRIBES TO GERMANY AND FRANCE.. STARVED HIS OWN PEOPLE. WHY IS IT YOU LIBRULS ALWAYS SIDE WITH DICATORS? i'M JUST NOT GETTING IT.[/B]

so what you are telling me is if we put him in power and made a mistake we should just suck it up and watch the people going through the wood chippers with a shrug of the shoulder,, and never mind the UN sanctions and other stuff is that what you are saying.

If you honestly think that the reason most people object to what happened to Saddam has ANYTHING to do with your bolded/capitalised rant, then you have just proven my point how you lack - severely - in the intellect department.

But carry on...I love watching ijits making fools of themselves....a bit like the guy who sellotaped bread crumbs to the window to watch birds batter themselves silly...

 

[007]

For months after 9/11 lower Manhattan up as far norther as City Hall smelled like death and a house fire.

So how do New Yorkers like Jill forget that horror doyathink?

moron.... no one forgets... idiot. we just don't become bullies like you are because then we're no better than the losers who flew the planes into my old office building.

loon.

Bullies win wars... not pussies.

 

[WillowTree]

saddam the vicious dictator who we funded and supplied chemical weapons to so he would be our guy in the middle east?

everything you're talking about existed prior to gulf I. there was no point to gulf II.... other than as bush thumping his chest and pretending he was doing something after 9/11.

EXCEPT FOR HE ATTACKED kUWAIT AND SET THEIR OIL FIELDS AFIRE.. REMEMBER.. THEN THERE WAS THE MATTER OF OIL FOR FOOD BRIBES TO GERMANY AND FRANCE.. STARVED HIS OWN PEOPLE. WHY IS IT YOU LIBRULS ALWAYS SIDE WITH DICATORS? i'M JUST NOT GETTING IT.

so what you are telling me is if we put him in power and made a mistake we should just suck it up and watch the people going through the wood chippers with a shrug of the shoulder,, and never mind the UN sanctions and other stuff is that what you are saying.

prior to gulf I, cookie. are you suggesting that you go back for a second war just cause the first one wasn't satisfying enough?

i'm telling you that bush's war of choice had nothing to do with 9.11... it was a pointless suck of our treasure and blood.

and your ranting and raving and head exploding won't change that one iota.

who said I was trying to change it? it is what it is.. right or wrong.. we put him in and we took him out.. you would have left him in.. it's just that simple and I can hear the woodchippers roar..

 

[kyzr]

yeah, it made lots of sense to attack a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us.
see, idiot, to me, attacking someone brown just to feel better wouldn't seem very effective.

Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis, started two major wars, had the 4th largest army in the world and huge oil reserves, meaning unlimited resources. He defied the UN, and was removed and replaced by a democracy. He had nothing to do with 9/11, but Iraq needed a regime change.

Tell me removing a vicious brutal dictator like Saddam was just a racist act?! How fucking stupid does that sound? Tell me you prefer Saddam back in power in Iraq.

saddam the vicious dictator who we funded and supplied chemical weapons to so he would be our guy in the middle east?

everything you're talking about existed prior to gulf I. there was no point to gulf II.... other than as bush thumping his chest and pretending he was doing something after 9/11.

As I understand it, we basically kept the Iraq-Iran war a stalemate, to keep it contained. We didn't want either side to win. Saddam was not "our guy", anymore than OBL who we helped in AFG was "our guy". I still prefer Iraq w/o Saddam. I applaud Bush for getting it done, and hope it works out long term.

 

[WillowTree]

EXCEPT FOR HE ATTACKED kUWAIT AND SET THEIR OIL FIELDS AFIRE.. REMEMBER.. THEN THERE WAS THE MATTER OF OIL FOR FOOD BRIBES TO GERMANY AND FRANCE.. STARVED HIS OWN PEOPLE. WHY IS IT YOU LIBRULS ALWAYS SIDE WITH DICATORS? i'M JUST NOT GETTING IT.[/B]

so what you are telling me is if we put him in power and made a mistake we should just suck it up and watch the people going through the wood chippers with a shrug of the shoulder,, and never mind the UN sanctions and other stuff is that what you are saying.

If you honestly think that the reason most people object to what happened to Saddam has ANYTHING to do with your bolded/capitalised rant, then you have just proven my point how you lack - severely - in the intellect department.

But carry on...I love watching ijits making fools of themselves....a bit like the guy who sellotaped bread crumbs to the window to watch birds batter themselves silly...

I can hear the woodchippers.. roar. you would have left him to do it too.

 

[blu]

So how do New Yorkers like Jill forget that horror doyathink?

moron.... no one forgets... idiot. we just don't become bullies like you are because then we're no better than the losers who flew the planes into my old office building.

loon.

Bullies win wars... not pussies.

thats a pretty cool quote. I am sure 4th graders everywhere will find it amusing while playing call of duty

 

[jillian]

Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis, started two major wars, had the 4th largest army in the world and huge oil reserves, meaning unlimited resources. He defied the UN, and was removed and replaced by a democracy. He had nothing to do with 9/11, but Iraq needed a regime change.

Tell me removing a vicious brutal dictator like Saddam was just a racist act?! How fucking stupid does that sound? Tell me you prefer Saddam back in power in Iraq.

saddam the vicious dictator who we funded and supplied chemical weapons to so he would be our guy in the middle east?

everything you're talking about existed prior to gulf I. there was no point to gulf II.... other than as bush thumping his chest and pretending he was doing something after 9/11.

As I understand it, we basically kept the Iraq-Iran war a stalemate, to keep it contained. We didn't want either side to win. Saddam was not "our guy", anymore than OBL who we helped in AFG was "our guy". I still prefer Iraq w/o Saddam. I applaud Bush for getting it done, and hope it works out long term.

our self-interest in seeing iran contained never changed. i think bush endangered us and the entire middle east by leaving iran unchecked.

i think bush was the most dangerous, most ignorant president i have ever seen.

 

[blu]

EXCEPT FOR HE ATTACKED kUWAIT AND SET THEIR OIL FIELDS AFIRE.. REMEMBER.. THEN THERE WAS THE MATTER OF OIL FOR FOOD BRIBES TO GERMANY AND FRANCE.. STARVED HIS OWN PEOPLE. WHY IS IT YOU LIBRULS ALWAYS SIDE WITH DICATORS? i'M JUST NOT GETTING IT.[/B]

so what you are telling me is if we put him in power and made a mistake we should just suck it up and watch the people going through the wood chippers with a shrug of the shoulder,, and never mind the UN sanctions and other stuff is that what you are saying.

If you honestly think that the reason most people object to what happened to Saddam has ANYTHING to do with your bolded/capitalised rant, then you have just proven my point how you lack - severely - in the intellect department.

But carry on...I love watching ijits making fools of themselves....a bit like the guy who sellotaped bread crumbs to the window to watch birds batter themselves silly...

I can hear the woodchippers.. roar. you would have left him to do it too.

so we should remove every dictator throughout the world or what is your criteria for pre-emptive invasion?

 

[blu]

saddam the vicious dictator who we funded and supplied chemical weapons to so he would be our guy in the middle east?

everything you're talking about existed prior to gulf I. there was no point to gulf II.... other than as bush thumping his chest and pretending he was doing something after 9/11.

As I understand it, we basically kept the Iraq-Iran war a stalemate, to keep it contained. We didn't want either side to win. Saddam was not "our guy", anymore than OBL who we helped in AFG was "our guy". I still prefer Iraq w/o Saddam. I applaud Bush for getting it done, and hope it works out long term.

our self-interest in seeing iran contained never changed. i think bush endangered us and the entire middle east by leaving iran unchecked.

i think bush was the most dangerous, most ignorant president i have ever seen.

he made it terrible. iran now controls iraq.

 

[WillowTree]

yeah, it made lots of sense to attack a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us.
see, idiot, to me, attacking someone brown just to feel better wouldn't seem very effective.

Saddam killed 300,000 Iraqis, started two major wars, had the 4th largest army in the world and huge oil reserves, meaning unlimited resources. He defied the UN, and was removed and replaced by a democracy. He had nothing to do with 9/11, but Iraq needed a regime change.

Tell me removing a vicious brutal dictator like Saddam was just a racist act?! How fucking stupid does that sound? Tell me you prefer Saddam back in power in Iraq.

we should have minded our business, we are not the UNs goon force. it would have saved thousands of american lives, billions of dollars and not stretched our troops thin. we can't even respond to iran now because of iraq, and all iraq has done is give iran another country to run behind the scenes

you want to attack Iran??