Jesus...when is everyone gonna wake up?

[skins56 0]

Are these the same soldiers of whom 70% still believe Iraq was responsible for 9-11?

 

This argument is ridiculous. Just how much easier is it to get arms, people and materiel into Iraq than it would be to get it into this country? A lot of the insurgents are coming in from neighboring countries, they're not having to travel halfway around the world with bombs and suicide bombers. It's like if the criminal element decided to move to St. Joe from K.C. as opposed to moving in from Capetown South Africa.

 

Ridiculous argument, plain and simple.

 

Ahhh, the old John Kerry reply. The argument might not make sense to you but you can probably make your point without insulting the people who sacrifice everything in order to serve our country.

[cmh6476 1,143]

Are these the same soldiers of whom 70% still believe Iraq was responsible for 9-11?

 

This argument is ridiculous. Just how much easier is it to get arms, people and materiel into Iraq than it would be to get it into this country? A lot of the insurgents are coming in from neighboring countries, they're not having to travel halfway around the world with bombs and suicide bombers. It's like if the criminal element decided to move to St. Joe from K.C. as opposed to moving in from Capetown South Africa.

 

Ridiculous argument, plain and simple.

Do you believe those insurgents could get into this country, boms and explosives notwithstanding?

 

 

If so, don't you believe they could comprise strategies and find materials in this country to carry through with those planned tactics?

 

 

I think those who do believe they would come to us if we didn't take the fight to them believe that they are in iraq fighting us there because that is where we are at. The insurgents have a battleground to combat us. If we weren't there, then they wouldn't be there, they would be in other democratic countries using terror to instill fear in the citizenry of different democratic nations. I for one believe we'd be busier all around thre world combating terrorism if we didn't have a lot of them tied up in iraq fighting us there.

 

[BLS 315]

Because that would definitely make us safer.

 

The question that the General didn't answer was a loaded one that no intelligent person would answer. You say "no" and it makes everything he has presented moot. You say "yes" and then you're asked for evidence which is impossible to provide.

 

Here's a question: Did any of you think that our country would be void of any terrorist attacks 6 years after 9/11? Does our government and or military deserve any credit for that?

 

Also, one last major thing that really gets on my nerves. "Why didn't we invade the Sudan if we are in the business of liberating people and humanitarian efforts?" Or, "Why didn't we invade Saudi Arabia because most of the hijackers on 9/11 were from there?" Or, why didn't we invade (insert country here) becasue there are more Al Qaeda there than in Iraq?" Anyone who asks these questions is a moron. Clearly we went to war with Iraq because their violations of all those UN violations gave us an "in" to do so. Its right in the middle of that clusterfuck thats over there and long term it COULD have an impact in calming that region down. Maybe it won't but I'm glad I'm not in charge of making these decisions because I'm not sure anyone has the right answers for how you fight a war with terrorists. Is the answer to do nothing? Setting a good example is great and all but if you think Al Qaeda and the fundamentalist Islam world will just leave us alone if we mind our business then I don't know what to say to you.

 

You don't know much about Civil Liberties, do you?

Maybe when you understand the Constitution and our Civil Liberties, and what's REALLY at stake here, I'll give you a legitimate reply to your ridiculous answer above.

[DanXIII 8]

Here's a question: Did any of you think that our country would be void of any terrorist attacks 6 years after 9/11?

 

This is completely untrue.

[Snuff 10]

You don't know much about Civil Liberties, do you?

Maybe when you understand the Constitution and our Civil Liberties, and what's REALLY at stake here, I'll give you a legitimate reply to your ridiculous answer above.

 

 

Let's all bow down to the greatness of Black Label Society.

[wiffleball 4,797]

Do you believe those insurgents could get into this country, boms and explosives notwithstanding?

If so, don't you believe they could comprise strategies and find materials in this country to carry through with those planned tactics?

I think those who do believe they would come to us if we didn't take the fight to them believe that they are in iraq fighting us there because that is where we are at. The insurgents have a battleground to combat us. If we weren't there, then they wouldn't be there, they would be in other democratic countries using terror to instill fear in the citizenry of different democratic nations. I for one believe we'd be busier all around thre world combating terrorism if we didn't have a lot of them tied up in iraq fighting us there.

 

 

Uh, Chad? You DO understand what the word "Insurgent" means, don't you?

 

 

 

"I do not think that means what you think it means"

[cmh6476 1,143]

yeah should have said terrorists, sorry. Basically any of those that try and influence a governing body or its people by use of terror, and I believe those who practice this wouldn't be as concentrated in iraq and you would see them using these tactics at a greater level elsewhere in the world.

[wiffleball 4,797]

. Basically any of those that try and influence a governing body or its people by use of terror, and I believe those who practice this wouldn't be as concentrated in iraq and you would see them using these tactics at a greater level elsewhere in the world.

 

If....???

[thetxstang 0]

LMAO at the resident Demwits totally ignoring the UN angle on the Iraq war.

 

LMOA at resident chickenhawk Rethugs who posit the UN angle on the Iraq war when they have repeatedly bashed the UN as a worthless entity that doesn't serve the security interests of the U.S.

 

Priceless.

[cmh6476 1,143]

If....???

they weren't preocuppied in iraq.

[BLS 315]

 

Let's all bow down to the greatness of Black Label Society.

 

 

Bow away!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Are these the same soldiers of whom 70% still believe Iraq was responsible for 9-11?

 

You got something that shows 70%?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

LMOA at resident chickenhawk Rethugs who posit the UN angle on the Iraq war when they have repeatedly bashed the UN as a worthless entity that doesn't serve the security interests of the U.S.

 

Priceless.

 

 

The UN is a worthless entity, made moreso by Clinton not doing a damn thing for 8 years when Saddam was thumbing his nose at the Cease Fire agreement and the UN Resolutions.

 

Bush finally gave the UN some validity by actually doing what UN Resolutions said. Having said that, I would love for us to kick the useless UN out of the U.S. and stop paying their bills.

[paulinstl 296]

You got something that shows 70%?

 

 

Here you go. Looks like I underestimated:

 

While 85%[of American troops serving in Iraq] said the U.S. mission is mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks,”

 

From February 28, 2006 Poll

 

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

[Recliner Pilot 61]

From February 28, 2006 Poll

 

You claimed they "still believed" and you bring a poll that's over a year and a half old?

 

Got something a little more current?

[skins56 0]

You don't know much about Civil Liberties, do you?

Maybe when you understand the Constitution and our Civil Liberties, and what's REALLY at stake here, I'll give you a legitimate reply to your ridiculous answer above.

 

Hmmm, civil liberties and the Constitution aren't too tough to understand but maybe you can help me out by explaining how you have been negatively affected by the Patriot Act.