"there is nothing misogynistic about anything, stop trippin.
i type this way because im black and from nyc chill son "
Only a liberal would "slip in it and break their neck", but that danger is easily overcome by affixing a ""DANGER!" sticker, which step I've taken to keep you out of trouble.
No, no it's not, and to say that it is reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by liberals.
It has never been proven that Al Qaeda was not there before Saddam was deposed, but, in any case, I've never hinged any of my arguments on that point.
Point being that Al Qaeda is there now, in whatever numbers, and fomenting others, as well as promoting civil strife, which effectively and greatly expands violence which can be attributed directly to them, you see.
As to the issue of increased terror attacks, you seem to have kept that tidbit close to hand.
Will you tell us now how many of these attacks were Al Qaeda affairs?
They only count for purposes of debate if they are Al Qaeda-sponsored, so I believe I'll disallow your point.
And anyone who attempts to make hay saying that a "date certain" for withdrawal does not favor the enemy is (please forgive the lack of polysyllabic content in the following word; no other word is properly descriptive) stupid.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Yes it is. The enemy may be different but war is war. And to try to excuse the behavior of the republicans as being somehow different reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by conservatives.
A faith based war
Ok let me say that it has been shown that there were some AQ in Iraq, BUT they were not there under a safe haven, and Saddam made efforts to stamp out/kill them in the same way he did with all threats to his power
And this is a direct result of this administrations actions. Yes???????
Yet the ones who were right about this before the war are somehow deemed less credible.
look here I made a mistake, the figure is 29%
Then by the standards the are trying to place on the those that disagree with Bush now the republicans were "defeatist, wave the white flag cowards" while Clinton was in office. This "stupid" description also includes bush...remember he was quite clear about the need for timetables when it was Clinton in charge
Added This "date certain" is just a talking point, not what the bill said. I know you don't do "details" but the bill required the withdrawal from standing in the middle of the iraqis shooting at each other. It did not say withdraw all (or for that matter any) troops from fighting AQ in Iraq. Troops would remain for the reasons we have been given all along by Bush as to why we went there.....training Iraqi troops and actively combat the terrorists.
I will add that "bringing the troops home and ending this war" is also a talking point because of the same details.
But again this is all off thread.
Last edited by vidcc; 05-02-2007 at 11:19 PM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
[QUOTE=vidcc;1962288] Yes it is. The enemy may be different but war is war. And to try to excuse the behavior of the republicans as being somehow different reeks of that special brand of silliness that is practiced exclusively by conservatives.
A faith based war
Ok let me say that it has been shown that there were some AQ in Iraq, BUT they were not there under a safe haven, and Saddam made efforts to stamp out/kill them in the same way he did with all threats to his power
And this is a direct result of this administrations actions. Yes???????
Yet the ones who were right about this before the war are somehow deemed less credible.
look here I made a mistake, the figure is 29%
You miss (for perhaps the thousandth time in your history on this board) the rather salient fact that 9/11 had not yet occurred, and the sea-change it occasioned had not taken place, either.
Unless you deny that it changed U.S. foreign policy significantly.
Perhaps you would prefer to argue that while it did, it should not have?
Sounds like backpedaling to me...
It's not off-topic until the author of this thread says so, and that's not you, is it.
"Researchers have already cast much darkness on the subject, and if they continue their investigations, we shall soon know nothing at all about it."
-Mark Twain
Another talking point and another shining example of distraction comments made in the hope of silencing debate instead of substantiative reasoning.
Why is it that every time the Iraq war is discussed the right wing always brings up 911 as if Iraq had one thing to do with it and then suggest those that disagree with their view have somehow forgotten it?
I will say that American foreign policy did change significantly..... some incompetent republican president uses it to justify bad policy in a war that had nothing to do with it leading us into far more danger.
BTW. 911 hadn't occurred but we had been attacked, wasn't that attack big enough for those republicans to "change the way the world is viewed"?
Here's a scoop...... the "Iraq war" was won 4 years ago by the troops. What happened after that was a failed neo con ideological experiment at the end of a gun. That is what has led to the situation we see today. ( a shining example of your sig except nobody promised I will not say "told you so")
AQ are going to come after us if we are in Iraq or not. Iraq is hindering our fight against AQ
Last edited by vidcc; 05-03-2007 at 12:40 AM.
it’s an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.
Bookmarks