60% of all military deaths in afghanistan have occured on barrys watch

[nikki2200 4]

Wow, the extreme left labels them righties, go figure. What a crazy world we live in.

 

Nope. Righties are easily discernable and not easily confused with something they aren't. hth

[IGotWorms 4,063]

I'm not happy with the way things are going in Afghanistan, but you guys are the biggest bunch of hypocrites to ever grace the Earth. Remember how it was President Bush that began the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Remember how the liberals were vehemently opposed to the Iraq War? Remember how you guys tried to say that we were an unpatriotic, blame-America-first crowd for criticizing President Bush's decision to start that war and his subsequent handling of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

 

Oh, but now it's different. Because a Democrat is in office. You guys are so transparent it's laughable.

[MDC 8,225]

It wasn't just "our side". Do you need yet another review of the myriad leftists who also thought that Saddam had WMD, or are you going to continue to be dense and myopic in your ignorance of that truth?

 

I can't speak for "leftists" - I didn't support the war in Iraq from the beginning and I don't support it now. It's been a collosal waste of taxpayer money and according to our own NIEs it's done nothing but create more terrorists.

 

Wars can have more than one reason for waging, btw. HTH. Glomming on to one tag line (WMD) is your failing; it doesn't mean that it was the only reason for removing Saddam. In fact, Saddam was a genocidist, and - while plenty of your lefty brethren have been whining about why we're not doing anything in Darfur (a war which would ostensibly also be waged for the same reasons: saving the lives of innocents), you seem incapable of consistency in this regard.

 

You know as well as I do that WMDs were the overwhelming reason we invaded Iraq in the first place and the White House never would've gotten the public support they needed if they'd billed the war as a humanitarian mission or if they'd been in the right stratosphere when they gave us a pricetag of $30 billion.

 

It's nice that you also glom on to convenient reports, considering that there are contrary reports which say otherwise, as well as reality, which as proven no attacks in 10 years. It's nice to have the insulation of a created reality - one where Al Qaeda's resources were redirected to the ME to fight us there - to make your claims that we are now not more safe, isn't it?

 

It's a great tactic by you lefties.

 

I can point you to our own National Intelligence Estimates for evidence that the war in Iraq hasn't made us safer at all. What do you have? Links to some really smart guys on Hannity's message board posting interesting info?

 

Dangerously thin? You'd not have us deployed at all. So just WTF do you care about "dangerously thin"? Red herring: that's what.

 

 

I care about "dangerously thin" because the fact that we're still mired in Iraq and Afghanistan impedes our ability to wage war elsewhere if necessary. I also don't think we should be sending our troops overseas for third and forth tours of duty far beyond their initial commitment.

 

Ah - yep: cannot avoid throwing more nonsense about your personal opinion too, eh? You don't matter to me, Worm. I care that you think I'm incorrect only to the extent that hearing that indicates to me that I'm still on the correct track.

 

If you didn't care then why address me? It's not like I'm sitting around thinking, "I wonder what that fatty birther who supports creationism in the classroom thinks of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?"

 

You can rest assured that I have no respect for you or your retarded opinions.

[MDC 8,225]

Since you are taking sides, why don't you understand that attacking the other side does not make your side right? HTH

 

I guess this is the liberal independent thought Nikki was talking about.

 

I put "side" in quotes because I wouldn't lump all conservatives, Republicans, right-wingers, etc. in with Mensa. Get it?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm not happy with the way things are going in Afghanistan, but you guys are the biggest bunch of hypocrites to ever grace the Earth. Remember how it was President Bush that began the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Remember how the liberals were vehemently opposed to the Iraq War? Remember how you guys tried to say that we were an unpatriotic, blame-America-first crowd for criticizing President Bush's decision to start that war and his subsequent handling of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

 

Oh, but now it's different. Because a Democrat is in office. You guys are so transparent it's laughable.

 

Your Messiah lied, people died.

[drobeski 3,061]

I'm not happy with the way things are going in Afghanistan, but you guys are the biggest bunch of hypocrites to ever grace the Earth. Remember how it was President Bush that began the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Remember how the liberals were vehemently opposed to the Iraq War? Remember how you guys tried to say that we were an unpatriotic, blame-America-first crowd for criticizing President Bush's decision to start that war and his subsequent handling of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

 

Oh, but now it's different. Because a Democrat is in office. You guys are so transparent it's laughable.

its different because more of are men are dying, and the reasons why....

[mobb_deep 921]

its different because more of are men are dying, and the reasons why....

 

our men...

 

You're like a real life Billy Madison, aren't you?

[drobeski 3,061]

our men...

 

You're like a real life Billy Madison, aren't you?

I know you're a true life troop hating scumbag, and a fat pussay to boot, so I won't bother with a panty waste like you.

The news of more troops dying makes cowards like you happy ...so basically you can fock off.

[mobb_deep 921]

I know you're a true life troop hating scumbag, and a fat pussay to boot, so I won't bother with a panty waste like you.

The news of more troops dying makes cowards like you happy ...so basically you can fock off.

 

At least I can fvck off with an elementary level vernacular.

 

You, on the other hand, are a poster boy for the stereotypical back woods, uneducated GOP white trash. Congrats on that.

 

[drobeski 3,061]

At least I can fvck off with an elementary level vernacular.

 

You, on the other hand, are a poster boy for the stereotypical back woods, uneducated GOP white trash. Congrats on that.

 

As opposed to a poster boy for panzy ass troop hating hipster homos ? I'll wear my badge proudly.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I can't speak for "leftists" - I didn't support the war in Iraq from the beginning and I don't support it now. It's been a collosal waste of taxpayer money and according to our own NIEs it's done nothing but create more terrorists.

 

That's because you're a lefty: responsible people keep you safe. You just whine.

 

You know as well as I do that WMDs were the overwhelming reason we invaded Iraq in the first place and the White House never would've gotten the public support they needed if they'd billed the war as a humanitarian mission or if they'd been in the right stratosphere when they gave us a pricetag of $30 billion.

 

Wars aren't fought with polls. Only the bankruptcy of the left has even made PR important in these matters. You lap it up like the lefty you are. Iraq was invaded for many reasons; WMD was the one which PR felt would resonate with the public.

 

What did you want to do about 9/11, btw? This should be entertaining for people with a grasp of reality and the stones to do what is needed.

 

I can point you to our own National Intelligence Estimates for evidence that the war in Iraq hasn't made us safer at all. What do you have? Links to some really smart guys on Hannity's message board posting interesting info?

 

Ah. It's so nice for you to use reports that help you, while ignoring the ones that don't.

 

Terrorism on the decline

 

Don't worry, though: you have fellow libs who have remained clueless this entire time bloviating the same tired lefty line about how fighting terrorism has resulted in more terrorism: clueless idiots like Henry Waxman, who - as you can see above - have been proven absolutely wrong about what happens when you fight terrorism.

 

Heaven forbid you actually get bees in your house. Going after them would result in more bee stings, so you wouldn't want to actually do something about it.

 

Again, never fear: grownups will take care of you while you fret.

 

I care about "dangerously thin" because the fact that we're still mired in Iraq and Afghanistan impedes our ability to wage war elsewhere if necessary.

 

Ah! Somewhere where there's real fighting to be done, eh? Though of course you won't find criticism there, either....

 

Tell me: have you found a war in your lifetime that you haven't objected to?

 

I also don't think we should be sending our troops overseas for third and forth tours of duty far beyond their initial commitment.

 

War isn't fought on a clock. Enlisteds do what they're told; that's their commitment. The concept is doubtless foreign to you.

 

If you didn't care then why address me? It's not like I'm sitting around thinking, "I wonder what that fatty birther who supports creationism in the classroom thinks of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?"

 

I said Worm. I also do not care what you think either.

 

You can rest assured that I have no respect for you or your retarded opinions.

 

This tells me that I'm exactly right. Thank you for the affirmation of a lefty. That is why I'm here. I'm about ridding this country of lefties, and will support any effort to defeat your addled ideas. Thanks again.

[IMMensaMind 462]

I'm not happy with the way things are going in Afghanistan, but you guys are the biggest bunch of hypocrites to ever grace the Earth. Remember how it was President Bush that began the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Remember how the liberals were vehemently opposed to the Iraq War? Remember how you guys tried to say that we were an unpatriotic, blame-America-first crowd for criticizing President Bush's decision to start that war and his subsequent handling of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

 

Oh, but now it's different. Because a Democrat is in office. You guys are so transparent it's laughable.

 

Oh? I know I supported invading Iraq, and I still do. I know that how we approached quelling the Taliban in Afghanistan determines whether or not I supported the effort. I know that invading Iraq drew Al-Qaeda to our troops, where they were drilled like grass in a lawnmower.

 

Your buddy Obama has no plan. Have you seen it? Have you even questioned it? You lefty types were all about the "exit strategy", because you're like the French. What are you now?

 

Silent. That's WTF you are. My position isn't hypocritical, and I'm also very comfortable saying that most on my side of the aisle have roughly the same position.

 

You, on the other hand, ARE hypocritical, because you're the one actually trying to deflect from Obama here.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm not happy with the way things are going in Afghanistan, but you guys are the biggest bunch of hypocrites to ever grace the Earth. Remember how it was President Bush that began the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Remember how the liberals were vehemently opposed to the Iraq War? Remember how you guys tried to say that we were an unpatriotic, blame-America-first crowd for criticizing President Bush's decision to start that war and his subsequent handling of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

 

Oh, but now it's different. Because a Democrat is in office. You guys are so transparent it's laughable.

 

Bush was POTUS when we went into both countries. Afghanistan based on 9/11. Iraq based on Saddam not living up to the Cease Fire Agreement, which required many things beyond getting rid of his WMDs, and Saddam ignoring 17 UN Resolutions. If the Iraq war was a mistake, the UN is a mistake and we need to get the fukk out of it.

 

I have linked vids of several "liberals" saying Saddam had WMDs. Most "liberals" voted in favor of giving Bush authority to use force. (How many voted to give Obama authority to go into Libya? Zero). Removing Saddam from power became official US policy under Clinton.

 

Obama promised to have us out of Iraq in 18 months. He lied, people died. That phrase applies to aobama, not Bush. When will you condemn Obsma fir this? Never, that's when.

 

When did we say you were unpatriotic? More talking points BS, like your entire post.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm not happy with the way things are going in Afghanistan, but you guys are the biggest bunch of hypocrites to ever grace the Earth. Remember how it was President Bush that began the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Remember how the liberals were vehemently opposed to the Iraq War? Remember how you guys tried to say that we were an unpatriotic, blame-America-first crowd for criticizing President Bush's decision to start that war and his subsequent handling of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

 

Oh, but now it's different. Because a Democrat is in office. You guys are so transparent it's laughable.

 

Bush was POTUS when we went into both countries. Afghanistan based on 9/11. Iraq based on Saddam not living up to the Cease Fire Agreement, which required many things beyond getting rid of his WMDs, and Saddam ignoring 17 UN Resolutions. If the Iraq war was a metals, the UN is a mistake and we need to get the fukk out of it.

 

I have linked vids of several "liberals" saying Saddam had WMDs. Most "liberals" voted in favor of giving Bush authority to use force. (How many voted to give Obama authority to go into Libya? Zero). Removing Saddam from power became official US policy under Clinton.

 

Obama promised to have us out of Iraq in 18 months. He lied, people died. That phrase applies to Obama not Bush. When will you condemn Obama for this? Never, that's when.

 

When did we say you were unpatriotic? More talking points BS, like your entire post.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Using the edit function sux on the phone.

[Dr.Grimm 0]

 

the White House never would've gotten the public support they needed if they'd billed the war as a humanitarian mission

 

You mean like Libya.

[MDC 8,225]

That's because you're a lefty: responsible people keep you safe. You just whine.

I didn’t support the war in Iraq because the case for war was pitifully thin and everything that’s happened since has validated by belief that we never should’ve gone in there in the first place.

Wars aren't fought with polls. Only the bankruptcy of the left has even made PR important in these matters. You lap it up like the lefty you are. Iraq was invaded for many reasons; WMD was the one which PR felt would resonate with the public.

PR is important in these matters because taxpayers are footing the bill, and the public turned on this war when it became obvious that the primary selling point was a load.

 

What did you want to do about 9/11, btw? This should be entertaining for people with a grasp of reality and the stones to do what is needed.

I was all for the war in Afghanistan because at least we know that al Qaida is primary stationed at the Afghanistan / Pakistan border, but eight years later it’s obvious to me there’s no “winning” there, at least not for an expense that we’re willing to shoulder, so it’s time to draw down.

The difference between you and me is that I know I was wrong on Afghanistan, but even with almost ten years of hindsight you still don’t realize how wrong you were and still are when it comes to Iraq.

Ah. It's so nice for you to use reports that help you, while ignoring the ones that don't.

 

Terrorism on the decline

 

Don't worry, though: you have fellow libs who have remained clueless this entire time bloviating the same tired lefty line about how fighting terrorism has resulted in more terrorism: clueless idiots like Henry Waxman, who - as you can see above - have been proven absolutely wrong about what happens when you fight terrorism.

Aside from the fact that two of these links go to the same article and all of them speak to global terrorism worldwide, rather than the affect on the war in Iraq on terrorism in particular, I’d like to reflect on the rich irony of Mensa now citing the United Nations as a more authoritative voice on military matters than our own National Intelligence Estimate.

 

 

Heaven forbid you actually get bees in your house. Going after them would result in more bee stings, so you wouldn't want to actually do something about it.

 

Again, never fear: grownups will take care of you while you fret.

One of the funniest things about FFT “conservatives” is watching guys like you and drobeski – fat poosays with b1tch teets – constantly congratulate yourselves on having the moral rectitude to … what, exactly? Talk like Dirty Harry about wars you aren’t going to fight in, paid for on the taxpayer debt?

Thanks for your strength and valor, Captain America.

Ah! Somewhere where there's real fighting to be done, eh? Though of course you won't find criticism there, either....

 

Tell me: have you found a war in your lifetime that you haven't objected to?

The war in Afghanistan, for starters. Aren’t you reading this thread?

 

War isn't fought on a clock. Enlisteds do what they're told; that's their commitment. The concept is doubtless foreign to you.

 

Again, thanks for enlightening me to the harsh realities of war you’ve gleened from watching men with bre@sts talk about it on Fox News.

 

 

I said Worm. I also do not care what you think either.

Obviously you do or you wouldn’t post me appropos of absolutely nothing to inform me of your silly opinions.

This tells me that I'm exactly right. Thank you for the affirmation of a lefty. That is why I'm here. I'm about ridding this country of lefties, and will support any effort to defeat your addled ideas. Thanks again.

 

If thinking you’re a azzclown makes one a lefty, nearly everyone on earth is roughly in line with Noam Chomsky. The only thing that separates you from the average mouthbreathing dingbat Hannity viewer is your mammoth sense of self-regard and six inches of whale blubber.

[MDC 8,225]

You mean like Libya.

 

I didn't support that either.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Bush was POTUS when we went into both countries. Afghanistan based on 9/11. Iraq based on Saddam not living up to the Cease Fire Agreement, which required many things beyond getting rid of his WMDs, and Saddam ignoring 17 UN Resolutions.

 

You're a focking liar. We went into Iraq because Saddamn Hussein supposedly had WMDs that were going to be used to kill Americans on our soil. That was the supposed justification. You are so full of sh!t in trying to change the story now. Do you think I wasn't ALIVE during 2003? LIAR.

[GettnHuge 2]

I'm not happy with the way things are going in Afghanistan, but you guys are the biggest bunch of hypocrites to ever grace the Earth. Remember how it was President Bush that began the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? Remember how the liberals were vehemently opposed to the Iraq War? Remember how you guys tried to say that we were an unpatriotic, blame-America-first crowd for criticizing President Bush's decision to start that war and his subsequent handling of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

 

Oh, but now it's different. Because a Democrat is in office. You guys are so transparent it's laughable.

 

seriously? nearly 300 house members voted for it and 77 senators (a senate that was majority DEMOCRAP at the time) voted for it.

spare us this 'vehemently opposed to it' crap.

The few who were opposed to it, years later who cry foul, when asked if they prefer saddam back in charge, have no answer for that.

 

Years ago Bush went forward with the surge to basically kill anyone and everyone causing the problems. Problems went away, stability

took over, the end.

This Hussein surge is to basically 'win the people over' to not shoot unless fired upon first. To no shoot in any civilian areas even if fired upon.

To not use air support in any areas where civilians might be. You can't win that way, you're only going to lose troops. Either be in it to win

or get out. Hussein is not trying to win. Now if he let the military do whatever it takes, I'm good with it.

[drobeski 3,061]

seriously? nearly 300 house members voted for it and 77 senators (a senate that was majority DEMOCRAP at the time) voted for it.

spare us this 'vehemently opposed to it' crap.

The few who were opposed to it, years later who cry foul, when asked if they prefer saddam back in charge, have no answer for that.

 

Years ago Bush went forward with the surge to basically kill anyone and everyone causing the problems. Problems went away, stability

took over, the end.

This Hussein surge is to basically 'win the people over' to not shoot unless fired upon first. To no shoot in any civilian areas even if fired upon.

To not use air support in any areas where civilians might be. You can't win that way, you're only going to lose troops. Either be in it to win

or get out. Hussein is not trying to win. Now if he let the military do whatever it takes, I'm good with it.

Blamm!!!!!!!!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You're a focking liar. We went into Iraq because Saddamn Hussein supposedly had WMDs that were going to be used to kill Americans on our soil. That was the supposed justification. You are so full of sh!t in trying to change the story now. Do you think I wasn't ALIVE during 2003? LIAR.

 

Ah, the old "Saddam is an imminent threat" talking point. Also BS.

 

Saddam didn't live up to the cease fire agreement. That is a fact.

 

There were 17 UN resolutions he violated. That is a fact.

 

Bill Clinton made regime change in Iraq official US policy. That is a fact.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Ah, the old "Saddam is an imminent threat" talking point. Also BS.

 

Saddam didn't live up to the cease fire agreement. That is a fact.

 

There were 17 UN resolutions he violated. That is a fact.

 

Bill Clinton made regime change in Iraq official US policy. That is a fact.

 

I knew you were a welcher, but even for you this is ridiculous. The Iraq War was sold on the premise that Saddamn had WMDs and would either use them against Americans himself or give them to terrorists/al-Qaeda operatives who would. And that was a focking lie. Period.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I knew you were a welcher, but even for you this is ridiculous. The Iraq War was sold on the premise that Saddamn had WMDs and would either use them against Americans himself or give them to terrorists/al-Qaeda operatives who would. And that was a focking lie. Period.

 

I never said WMDs were not part of the reason we went in. I simply pointed out it was one of many reasons. Reading comprehension, catch it!

It wasn't a lie, we had bad intel along with several other countries.

 

A lie would be promising to be out of Iraq in 18 months only to still be there...........

 

Your Messiah lied, people died.

[nikki2200 4]

seriously? nearly 300 house members voted for it and 77 senators (a senate that was majority DEMOCRAP at the time) voted for it.

spare us this 'vehemently opposed to it' crap.

The few who were opposed to it, years later who cry foul, when asked if they prefer saddam back in charge, have no answer for that.

 

Years ago Bush went forward with the surge to basically kill anyone and everyone causing the problems. Problems went away, stability

took over, the end.

This Hussein surge is to basically 'win the people over' to not shoot unless fired upon first. To no shoot in any civilian areas even if fired upon.

To not use air support in any areas where civilians might be. You can't win that way, you're only going to lose troops. Either be in it to win

or get out. Hussein is not trying to win. Now if he let the military do whatever it takes, I'm good with it.

 

I guess you weren't around for the anti-war protests? I personally got stuck in the middle of two of them - one in San Fran and one in NY. Aside from congress, the general liberal population was very against the war in Iraq.

 

FYI... the public doesn't always agree with congress.

[GettnHuge 2]

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

 

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

 

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

 

I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.

 

The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.

 

 

So Iraq has abused its final chance.

 

 

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere.

 

And so we had to act and act now.

 

 

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

 

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

 

 

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

 

 

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

 

The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people.

 

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

 

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

 

Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.

 

 

 

 

 

Bill Clinton 12-16-98

[Recliner Pilot 61]

seriously? nearly 300 house members voted for it and 77 senators (a senate that was majority DEMOCRAP at the time) voted for it.

spare us this 'vehemently opposed to it' crap.

The few who were opposed to it, years later who cry foul, when asked if they prefer saddam back in charge, have no answer for that.

 

Years ago Bush went forward with the surge to basically kill anyone and everyone causing the problems. Problems went away, stability

took over, the end.

This Hussein surge is to basically 'win the people over' to not shoot unless fired upon first. To no shoot in any civilian areas even if fired upon.

To not use air support in any areas where civilians might be. You can't win that way, you're only going to lose troops. Either be in it to win

or get out. Hussein is not trying to win. Now if he let the military do whatever it takes, I'm good with it.

 

Mebbe Worms is confusing Iraq with Libya since several libs have come out against it after the fact. Too bad they didn't get a chance to oppose it before Obama unilaterally started a war unconstitutionally.

 

An unconstitutional war where:

 

We said Qaddafi must go.

We say we have not taken sides.

We are killing innocents.

We said there would be no boots on the ground

We put boots on the ground.

 

More Obama lies, more people dying.

[mighty_thor 115]

Now if he let the military do whatever it takes, I'm good with it.

 

Didn't he give the military the additional troops they wanted? Sounds like he is letting the military do what they want and they are focking it up. Obama was an idiot to listen to the military instead of bringing the troops home.

[MDC 8,225]

More Obama lies, more people dying.

 

I hate when people make promises they don't keep.

[GettnHuge 2]

I guess you weren't around for the anti-war protests? I personally got stuck in the middle of two of them - one in San Fran and one in NY. Aside from congress, the general liberal population was very against the war in Iraq.

 

FYI... the public doesn't always agree with congress.

 

Liberals protest anything and everything. I acknowledged them as the 'few who were opposed'. But SanFran and NY? heh. Does that count?

Hell I remember when they were protesting the 'contract with america' and how people would be starving in the streets if any of those

proposals were passed.

[Phurfur 70]

Didn't he give the military the additional troops they wanted? Sounds like he is letting the military do what they want and they are focking it up. Obama was an idiot to listen to the military instead of bringing the troops home.

 

 

The military needed more troops to accomplish their goals but Obama only gave them half of what they needed 6 months late.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I hate when people make promises they don't keep.

 

More hilarity that is flying over your head.

[GettnHuge 2]

Didn't he give the military the additional troops they wanted? Sounds like he is letting the military do what they want and they are focking it up. Obama was an idiot to listen to the military instead of bringing the troops home.

 

Uhh no actually they didn't get all of the troops or ROE that they wanted and what was worse he waited for far too long to do it.

[drobeski 3,061]

Holy ass whooping batman....the libtards havent won a single argument this entire thread....bombarded with facts at every turn..

 

This is getting ugly folks ....butch liberal ugly.

[mighty_thor 115]

Uhh no actually they didn't get all of the troops or ROE that they wanted and what was worse he waited for far too long to do it.

 

The rules of engagement were setup by General McCrystal.

[Johnny B Good 0]

I never said WMDs were not part of the reason we went in. I simply pointed out it was one of many reasons. Reading comprehension, catch it!

It wasn't a lie, we had bad intel along with several other countries.

 

A lie would be promising to be out of Iraq in 18 months only to still be there...........

 

Your Messiah lied, people died.

 

 

Why are we still in Iraq? Bush said the mission was accomplished.

[nikki2200 4]

Liberals protest anything and everything. I acknowledged them as the 'few who were opposed'. But SanFran and NY? heh. Does that count?

Hell I remember when they were protesting the 'contract with america' and how people would be starving in the streets if any of those

proposals were passed.

 

But you said the"liberals" supported the war and changed their tune afterwards. I would venture to guess that of the 20% of americans that claim to be extremely liberal, most of them opposed the war from the beginning regardless of how congress voted. None of my liberal friends were for it. That I know. So why can't igw be one of the ones who was always against it? I'm gonna start calling you mensa if you keep trying to read minds.

[IGotWorms 4,063]

Holy ass whooping batman....the libtards havent won a single argument this entire thread....bombarded with facts at every turn..

 

This is getting ugly folks ....butch liberal ugly.

 

The guy with an eighth grade education thinks the conservatives are winning. Somehow I'm okay with that!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Why are we still in Iraq? Bush said the mission was accomplished.

We are on scedule to be out if Iraq according to the plan agreed to, and signed by Bush and Iraqi leaders. The reason we are on schedule is cuz Obama didn't get involved and fukk it up like he does everything else.

[GettnHuge 2]

But you said the"liberals" supported the war and changed their tune afterwards. I would venture to guess that of the 20% of americans that claim to be extremely liberal, most of them opposed the war from the beginning regardless of how congress voted. None of my liberal friends were for it. That I know. So why can't igw be one of the ones who was always against it? I'm gonna start calling you mensa if you keep trying to read minds.

 

where are the protests nowadays?