RE: Defining Victory in Iraq

RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 7:57:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Feel free to provide some empirical and substantiated evidence if you would enjoy continuing this conversation. Sinergy no you first.....i insist

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 7:59:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Feel free to provide some empirical and substantiated evidence if you would enjoy continuing this conversation. Sinergy no you first.....i insist Howabout I oblige you http://www.google.com/search?q=cherry+picked+evidence+iraq+intelligence&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3DVFA_enUS234US235

Sinergy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 8:03:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 And are you really sure Clinton was opposed to militarily removing the Taliban from Power in Afghanistan, and instead simply wanted "good old fashioned dectective work", in response to 911? I stand corrected, when 9/11 happened, everybody knows that President Clinton should have... Wait, wasnt George W. Bush the President of the United States on 9/11? Clinton briefed the Bush administration prior to leaving and stated that the biggest security threat the administration faced came from Al Qaeda. The Bush administration slept through the briefing. 9/11 happened on the Bush administrations watch. Please clarify exactly how Clinton caused 9/11. Sinergy

mnottertail -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 8:06:48 PM)
why do right wingers who love to suck mens dicks in airports pretend and lie that they are for the war in iraq? Ron

Sinergy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 8:10:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SeeksOnlyOne quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy Feel free to provide some empirical and substantiated evidence if you would enjoy continuing this conversation. Sinergy no you first.....i insist I already have. If you do a search on my name for any of the appropriate buzz words, you will probably come up with all sorts of links for your education and enlightenment. Enjoy your research. Sinergy p.s. I do not really see my place in life to continually repost links for people that did not bother to read or understand them the first time, or if they did read and understand them, failed to remember them.

Sanity -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 8:13:17 PM)
Probably for the same reason that some left wingers love to bash certain gays, pretend and lie and say they are in favor of "aborting" "fetuses" No one is really pro-war, and no one is really pro-abortion, that's just inflamatory rhetoric, and it's sad that you feel the desperate need to sink so low Larry Craig is my Senator but I don't give a rats ass that he's gay or that he gets his kicks in public restrooms, what pisses me off is that he cosponsored the latest (failed) amnesty bill for illegals because he knew he was going against the will of the majority of people who elected him... His sexuality though? That's his business...

mnottertail -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 8:13:48 PM)
quote: p.s. I do not really see my place in life to continually repost links for people that did not bother to read or understand them the first time, or if they did read and understand them, failed to remember them. what bothers me is these are the sort of fuckwads that style themselves as conservatives and fuck up my good name with their blase ignorant tongue shit

luckydog1 -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 8:29:36 PM)
I stand corrected, when 9/11 happened, everybody knows that President Clinton should have... Seeks asked you what we should have done after 911 you answered"Modifed our approach to dealing with the airlines, frozen Al Qaeda assets, and actually done what the Clinton administration recommended we do. Clinton recommended that the Bush administration resort to old fashioned police detective work. Bush preferred the military solution. " I was responding to your asertion that after 911 (the specific thing you were asked about) Clinton recomended police action Wait, wasnt George W. Bush the President of the United States on 9/11? Indeed he was Clinton briefed the Bush administration prior to leaving and stated that the biggest security threat the administration faced came from Al Qaeda. Yep The Bush administration slept through the briefing. Nope 9/11 happened on the Bush administrations watch. Yep Please clarify exactly how Clinton caused 9/11. Actually I never asserted anything of the sort, feel free to argue with your delusions, since you can't argue against my actuall points. Agruing a direct cause would be nonsense. But the half hearted attack on Afghanistan, probably mattered. As well as the attack on al Shifa, I notice you are afraid to go there. Clinton could have had OBL eliminated before Bush got in, but he insisted on the "legal" route as opposed to mIllitary. http://archive.newsmax.com/audio/BILLVH.mp3 you can listen to Clinton say it in his own words. But none of that is Direct "cause"and I would not try to argue it is. But it seems pretty stupid to think the world handed to Bush had no bearing on events.... Seeks..... the articles Sinergy says he gave before are just Rolling Stone Magazine.

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 8:56:50 PM)
i dont recall ever stating that there were not mistakes made by gw and intel re 9-11...... quote: i find blowin up buildings on 9-11 to be troubling my self. and im not saying that iraq or saddam had anything to do with that-i really dont know who did it to be honest. but i believe, maybe ignorantly, that the powers that be went after who they thought was the correct people with the info they had. was that info bad? maybe. should they have done more checking? definately. i guess im thinking more of the entire middle east though and that may be clouding how im looking at this. they have a culture that has always included violence. we do not. i say let them shoot each other and behead each other all they want. over there. harm one American.....we nuke em quote: as for being positive no iraqi had anything to do with 9-11and never harmed us, i am glad for you that you feel confident that is the truth. i have seen nothing to make me sure of it. i read every article on the front page of your link.........i still see nothing that proves iraq was or was not harboring al-quida or trying to accumulate weapons of mass destruction. i believe the govt (and i am not a bush supporter by any means) did the best they could with what they had. i applaud your absolute convictions about it, i just do not see things the same way that you do. and thats ok........for both of us

SeeksOnlyOne -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:00:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy p.s. I do not really see my place in life to continually repost links for people that did not bother to read or understand them the first time, or if they did read and understand them, failed to remember them. haha-normally i have enough sense to not wander into these political threads, but i have gone and read some things and found that others state the points i am trying to get across much better than i do. so i will wander in them still, but leave the debates to those of you who are much better with the written word than i.

Sinergy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:01:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity His sexuality though? That's his business... His criminal record is also his business, and actually serves to force him to step down. The problem that a lot of people seem to get confused, Sanity, is not that people have affairs, are gay, molest children in their employ, or whatever, it is that these same people convince their congregation that having sex out of wedlock is a sin, go bug nuts over a blow job, sponsor anti homosexual marraige and military service bills, and head up congressional committees on missing and exploited children. Hopefully you can understand the difference between what a person does in the privacy of their home, and how a person abuses the public trust by legislating against their own behaviors. Sinergy

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:07:20 PM)
quote: i read every article on the front page of your link.........i still see nothing that proves iraq was or was not harboring al-quida or trying to accumulate weapons of mass destruction. Just as I cannot prove Santa Claus was harboring al queda... you do realize that even dick cheney has come out and said that the Bush admin never stated that Saddam was harboring al queda nor did they say that Saddam planned 9-11... so tell me, where did you get the idea that this was so, because it is such an obvious bullshit lie that not even the most ardent dittohead still chimes in with this absolute bunch of crappola... and these were lies insinuated to the American people to propagandize them, and there was purposeful propanda to make you believe this was true, but it isn;t true... and it just shows you haven't been paying attention that you still believe it might possibly be true. I hit many of those links myself, and several are from intel insiders that more or less state that Bush was not interested in any evidence that would show Saddam did not have WMD. Further if you were paying attention you would know why Valarie Plame was outted... once you know the backstory on that, perhaps we can have something resembling an intelligent debate... because frankly you just aren't up to speed

Sanity -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:09:29 PM)
The Left used to say that a person's private life didn't matter. That's changed now I take it...

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:14:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity The Left used to say that a person's private life didn't matter. That's changed now I take it... When they are hypocrites, damn right it is open game. I do not recall Clinton ever running on the platform that blow jobs were bad... I can't stand Clinton mind you, but he didn't ever do that

Sinergy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:21:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Agruing a direct cause would be nonsense. But the half hearted attack on Afghanistan, probably mattered. I gave a lot of articles, not just ones in Rolling Stone. And while you so cavalierly dismiss the Afghanistan attacks, the US military did come away with the Al Qaeda computers containing contact information, bank information, etc., etc., which allowed regular police work to almost completely neutralize Al Qaeda. Afghanistan had a purpose. That purpose was done and taken care of years ago, yet we are still there. Iraq had no purpose. To recap: Afghanistan was important. Afghanistan was important because it allowed the United States and our allies to completely neutralize and prevent future threats from Al Qaeda using good old fashioned police work. Iraq was not important. Furthermore, Iraq was not only not-important but it completely destabilized the tenuous balance of power in the Middle East, and was promoted by the boogey man of Weapons of Mass Destruction that either did not exist or were so old they would no longer work. Having successfully screwed the pooch there, the administration wants to fail forward into Iran. Feel free to respond back, but my point about police work being what could be used to solve the problem of terrorism still stands. Sinergy

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:27:30 PM)
Not to mention, when the Bush admin felt threatened by Joseph Wilson and their intel about Nigerian yellowcake was question, they went after their own intelligence resources and compromised lord only knows how many intel assets connected to Plame. Not exactly the actions of people that care about how intelligence can prevent preemptive wars instead of causing them

luckydog1 -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:29:59 PM)
Not single thing was ever siezed in the Clintons Half Hearted attack on Afghanistan in 98, You are just making things up again. And the stuff we gained from the 01 invasion was the result of military action, not police work. Are you trying the childish trick of mixing the 2 events to make your point, tsk, tsk, tsk.

Sinergy -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:44:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Not single thing was ever siezed in the Clintons Half Hearted attack on Afghanistan in 98, You are just making things up again. And the stuff we gained from the 01 invasion was the result of military action, not police work. Are you trying the childish trick of mixing the 2 events to make your point, tsk, tsk, tsk. I thought the comment about "we invaded Afghanistan (which Clinton did not do) and got computers" would have been enough of a clue, but I will try to use smaller words in the future. Please go back and reread what I wrote and reply to what I actually stated, and not what you are trying to misrepresent as my words. Thank you. Sinergy

juliaoceania -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 9:51:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Not single thing was ever siezed in the Clintons Half Hearted attack on Afghanistan in 98, You are just making things up again. And the stuff we gained from the 01 invasion was the result of military action, not police work. Are you trying the childish trick of mixing the 2 events to make your point, tsk, tsk, tsk. Way to attempt to derail a thread, lets remind you of the plot points Clinton not president Bush is president Bush has launched an unnecessary war. Some people feel we need to have a "victory" to leave We are now trying to describe why we are there in the first place with makes it hard to ever have any sort of victory... Clinton is not even a bit player in this story... why does it always come back to Bill Clinton getting a blow job for you people? Don't you have anything else to throw into the debate?

luckydog1 -> RE: Defining Victory in Iraq (1/4/2008 11:17:12 PM)
Monkeygirl, It was Sinergy who brought Clinton into this thread, not I. And you are just now bringing up the blowjob. Why is it in any discussion of recent history, which of course includes the 90s, Leftwingers feel a need to derail it by bringing up Clintons BJ?

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.3896484