 |
Your usual hate speech and ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the valid points Green made about how the Republicans are toast in 2008. Why, Bush will have to attack Iran or schedule a terrorist attack on America in order to deflect the widespread disgust at his Presidential Record.
Oh, Glad to see you put on your tinfoil hat. Helps block the Satanic Rays controlling your thoughts, does it? :D
I hand my tin foil hat to youQuote:
or schedule a terrorist attack on America
Facts do not equal attacks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
The points have BEEN addressed by others who got to the question before me. I personally see no sense in repeating previously made points. In any event, they HAVE been addressed--you just won't (or can't) counter them. Instead, you launch your attacks, the substance of which merely accuse others of attacking. No valid counterpoints, no expounding on a position--just name calling.
I need no tinfoil hat. I use all my tinfoil for covering hams and deerflanks while cooking them.
And I thought you didn't believe in Satan?
Here Tex, just one paragraph for you to address. Or maybe you want to take some of your bullet pictures and put them in your cap gun and shoot my post to bits! Bwah hahahah
"What exactly can GOP candidates say next fall in the face of no WMD, no link between Saddam and 9/11, no flowers for "liberators," nearly 5million Iraqis displaced, tens of thousands of American dead or wounded as well as some 100,000 Iraqis killed - not to mention an increase in terrorism worldwide? "Give us more time" for a war that's lasted longer than World War II?"
I aren’t tex but….For one thing, “No more 9/11’s”:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Choux
If I'm reading correctly, your post is actually two paragraphs. But hey, I'm just an English teacher, what do I know, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
Anyway, as to the first paragraph:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Whatever. That the best you got?
On to the second:
To start with, Elliot summed it up quite nicely: "Sustained progress in Iraq... so much so that even Democrats are jumping ship on the idea of an early pullout."
As to the WMD's: He had them, the US saw them. Hell, I saw them in 1991! There is credible evidence that they were trucked over to Syria just prior to or even during the first phases of the invasion. Heaven knows we gave him enough time. The recent surgical strike in Syria could very well be the end of something started there over four years ago. Certainly, the buried MiG's indicated he was hiding/stockpiling SOMETHING. His subterfuge and outright obstruction of UN Inspectors stank to high heaven. Oh, and let's not forget the fact that there were something like 13 separate UN resolutions that he was failing to comply with. Resolutions that were DRAFTED and ENACTED by the UN Security Council that--if not complied with--WOULD result in the use of MILITARY force. Is it REALLY the fault of the US if the UN lacked the testicular fortitude to enforce their OWN RESOLUTIONS?
I guess most folks missed the part about SIGINT and photo recon showing definitive evidence of al Qaida training camps well within the borders of Iraq.
Yes, Iraqis have been displaced. However, even as I type new homes, hospitals, and schools are being constructed and have been constructed. Many German citizens were displaced during WW2--should we not have invaded Germany?
American casualties--As one who wore a uniform for many years, I can say that fighting and dying for the causes the US signs up for go with the territory. In fact, that's what we were for. I don't remember my oath saying anything about me picking and choosing which policies I could enforce. I, and every single other servicemember, knew precisely what the possibilities were when we raised our right hand. In addition, DoD statistics show no more loss of American servicemember lives during this campaign that during times when there were no hostilities. Where were the cries of outrage and vindettas against the administration during those years, when the causes of death were by and large vehicle accidents? Same numbers of injuries and deaths. So I guess it's better to get squashed by a friendly tank than to take a bullet buying freedom for others...
The loss of any civilians in a battle area is a tragedy. I can make no argument otherwise. All I can say is that the US is committed to making every reasonable effort to avoid/eliminate civilian casualties. However, anyone remember Vietnam? The guys and gals who were "civilians" by day and VC by night? The line gets very blurry sometimes, and I hate that. I wish the combatants would wear uniforms and have the courage to stand up and fight like men, but apparently that isn't their style. So they go guerrilla, and we have to adapt.
I posit that terrorism has NOT gone up worldwide since the war began. We had terrorist incidents before and during the war. The only difference I see is that the scumbag terrorists have a new excuse. And the biggie is this: America has had NO terrorist attacks on it's soil since the war began.
Where exactly SHOULD we fight the terrorists? I'd rather it be done across the ocean than across the street from my kids' school.
Yeah hind site is 20/20 thanks for the reddie for an opinion I gave over a year ago .
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:27 PM. |