What he said!

Now thats a noble deed!

dear liberal children, its a war on terror, not a war on al queda.
I understand liberal children can't make the mental connection, that's why Bush doesn't worry about you and your french ideas.
:1orglaugh

And Mr nazi and his North Korean friend is here to tell all about how we should be doing that :)

But Iraq has nothing to do with terror. Terror towards the people of Iraq possibly, but not international terror.

The effort should be concentrated on terror networks that are, or could be planning attacks on western countries first. Protect yourself first, then look after others.

While Iraq sucked, it was a secular regime with no room for extremist terror networks. If anything, the networks would have been targetting saddam for his genocide of shia muslims.

Our battle plan is just ass backwards. Starting at the end and ending in the beginning.

Mutt I knew I liked your a a good reason. Too many of these people think with what they see on the leftist news stations like CNN. It's time for many of you start thinking for yourselves and understanding the problem at hand.

The war against Saddam was not against Al Qaeda it was against Saddam for promoting terrorism and killing thousands of people because they didnt conform to his beliefs just as Al Qaeda does on a daily basis because we do not conform to theirs. Start using your head and stop listening to the media and read, form your own opinions, even though you may be a democrat read news from drudgereport.com and read between the lines. There are way too many new leftists on this board, its just amazing.

Iraq was supposedly part of the "war on terror". Spain joining the US would mean spain is fighting the "war on terror". Therefore, they would also be there when the US went after the terrorists themselves. Call it a pre-emptive strike.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Oh my God this is better than TV

Terror is terror dude? Saddam has been funding terrorism around the globe for ages, and its nothing new, you guys are looking at the most recent war only, look at history.

Is that so? Let's go then. I'm all for invading North Korea and the other dictators who are much worst than Saddam. Come on, let's move.
Kuwait is not a dictatorship, nor Saudi Arabia nor Egypt? Oh they happen to be allies, I forgot about that one.

50 Bush sightings

http://www.sexymojo.com/funpics/bushpower.jpg

He has, where did you get that info? any links?

Let me ask you this. When you know there are people actively pursuing attacks on domestic soil, is it more important to go after them or someone who's being unfair to the people in their own country?

I'm all for liberating Iraq, like most leftists are. Why would any left wing person be in favor of an authoritarian government? The problem with Iraq is we're blowing the budget on a distraction while there's an immediate danger to us the money would be better spent on.

People dont fly perfectly good airplanes into buildings for NO reason.

Look at real life. You just can't admit you fell for the obvious lies about the WMD and his connection to terrorists. It's nothing to be ashamed of, other governments bought it for Christ sake, but it's time to admit it to yourself that you were lied to and ate it up.

Saudi Arabia funds the fucking terror schools and they're your President's best friends. If you can't see something fucked up about that then you're a God damn Stepford wife.

I can't believe that some people, despite all what Bush has done, are still dumb enough to support him.

Some people can never admit they were wrong. Millions have died to support one man's pride, I'm not talking about Bush, just other bufoons before him that led the sheep astray.

Do you not think the missles fired into Kuwait, the mass graves and the killing of Kurds is terror, oh thats right its just "surivival of the fittest"

Granted I am not sure if there were WMD's this time when we went in, I am not privy to that info, however, there is concrete proof he had WMD's during the first gulf war, and lets face it Saddam is not one to change.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of the reasons for invading Iraq, WMD's etc, removing him from power was a step forward in the fight against terrorism and his regime that killed so many. Funny how the approval raiting for Bush in Iraq is 50+% even today.

Do you not think that taking over another country is terror? Do you not think that supporting Saddam while he was throwing all this shit on Iranians as terror? Of course not.

When you said 'terror around the globe' I thought you ment just that. I don't support what he's done, but America, Israel, Turkey and others have generated just as much 'terror' in recent history.

You're right we should support a fucked up leftist government that downsized our military, cared more about making themselves look good instead of improving our educational system like they said they would and spent more time being passive providing people like Usama Bin Ladden the leverage to attack us on Sept. 11th.

How could anyone believe that Al Qaeda prepared this attack within 9mos after GW getting elected, maybe instead of Clinton getting a hummer he should have been more strict on foreign affairs.

Terror is terror, do you feel that him being removed from power was a bad thing?

That was just an example, look at the funds that filter to terrorist organizations, many are from Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Egypt etc. There are many countries that promote terrorism because they dont agree with the ideas of FREEDOM.

<small>douchebagsezwhat</small>


huh?



AcidMax :thumbsup

Let me remind you that 9/11 happened when Bush was in power. So if another attack was to happen in the US, are you gonna publicly delcare that Bush is a useless incompetent?

You can whine on and on. Fact is, upon leaving, Clinton warned the administration that Ben Laden was getting very dangerous and needed to be dealt with. Nothing was done. Egypt and Israel sent him warnings and still he did nothing. Enough said.

Obviously Bush was already too obsessed by Iraq.

yes. get a fucking clue.
http://www.house.gov/reform/min/feat...on_the_record/

Most certainly yes just like I'd think that Bush being forcibly removed from power would be a bad thing to.

Such actions create lots of problems and tend to build a country that's always gonna be dependant upon others.

Do you not remember in 1993 when the World Trade Center was bombed the first time??????

Who was in office then? hmmmmm BILL CLINTON!

Do you think that Bill Clinton didnt think he was dangerous then?

I agree, lets nuke the bastards :)

:winkwink: :321GFY

cluck, would you like to read some facts and then edit your post so you don't look so dopey?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...bbas.arrested/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresid...p20011209.html
----------------------------------------------------------------

oh look, its little Roger all out of brains and facts falling back to the typical liberal position of calling his betters "Nazis"

hahaha, you win that one roger

oh, the mind of a child.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1309

you want to edit your post real quick so you don't look like the ass you are.

Mutt I can 100% support the war on terror that is not a question... the question is WTF did Iraq have to do with the war on terror? We will now be stuck in Iraq for a long time, we arn't get out of there any time soon.. So we have troops in Afgan and Iraq.. What happens if we have trouble else where? What if shit starts to happen in Kossovo again?

If we wouldn't have gotten involved in Iraq we could have finished the job in Afgan.. Then moved to the next target.. Right now we can't do both, this is why Afgan is pretty much a forgoten thing and in 10 years there will still be terrorists there.

I'm sure you can find way more terrorists in any other country. Is that all? That guy could've gone and lived in any other country and he wouldn't have been arrested because of the OSLO peace accord. Name me one terrorist attack this guy have launched since then. Enough said. He committed no crime in Iraq and therefore Saddam didn't arrest him.

I call people nazi when they throw anti-french, anti-semitic, anti-any race insults and rightfully so.

see dope, I knew you'd change the question from his connection to terror to his connection to terror "lately"
that's why I posted this:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles...le.asp?ID=1309
you really should quit this, you're out of your league. badly.


you quit high school to sling porn didn't you?
france is not a race no matter how much you want to twist it.

please, stop. I'm embarrassed for you.:1orglaugh

so Iraq provided safe haven to some terrorists member of the Palestine Liberation Front... oh nooo... and since when the US cares about a terrorist members of the Palestine Liberation Front!??? Since one of the dead was an american in a wheel chair!!!! lol But now thats a reason they found to justify the invasion!??? lol Someone they couldnt have cared less if he added kill that american..! Oh btw... nearly every damn countries in the middle east provide safe haven to terrorists of all kind... Can wait for the massive invasion :thumbsup

i'm thinking 'nazi' means a little more than just 'race' hate.

I love it when the children are proven wrong and they make a 50 word post that reall just says, "nuh uh"
:1orglaugh