(07-13-2009 12:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 12:04 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 11:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 10:47 AM)GGniner Wrote:  forget the WMD's that were shipped to Syria in all likelihood, later bombed by Israel a few years back(something was shipped anyway, and the Israelis bombed something quietly later on)

but forget those talking points of the Democrat Hacks Fo, read the resolution they voted on, a whole lot more than WMD is mentioned:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq...lution.htm

referenced in that policy is the 1998 Regime Change in iraq policy, passed overwhelmingly by the Senate under Clinton 98-0, and the Federal Indictment of Bin Laden(which mentions ties to Saddam and Iraq) in 1998


http://husseinandterror.com

I understand all that and certainly the world is a better place without Saddam and we have a right to track down criminals like Bin Ladin.....The fact is....we were wrong in intel and used that information...just as was the case with the Gulf of Tonkin incident to put together a case for entering conflict. We can keep on doing this stuff as long as the US can hold together...there is nothing I can do about it. I just ask that those that support this policy answer truthfully....Has the end justified the means? If one is comfortable with answering "yes"...then fine. Just stop trying to act as if what we are doing is always right.

Tinfoil hat conservatives at their best.

JFYI...I have equal dislike for liberal welfare,union and environmental thieves.

Being obsequious to SpottedTick, does nothing to change the color of your liberal tinfoil hat.

(07-13-2009 11:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 10:47 AM)GGniner Wrote:  forget the WMD's that were shipped to Syria in all likelihood, later bombed by Israel a few years back(something was shipped anyway, and the Israelis bombed something quietly later on)

but forget those talking points of the Democrat Hacks Fo, read the resolution they voted on, a whole lot more than WMD is mentioned:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq...lution.htm

referenced in that policy is the 1998 Regime Change in iraq policy, passed overwhelmingly by the Senate under Clinton 98-0, and the Federal Indictment of Bin Laden(which mentions ties to Saddam and Iraq) in 1998


http://husseinandterror.com

I understand all that and certainly the world is a better place without Saddam and we have a right to track down criminals like Bin Ladin.....The fact is....we were wrong in intel and used that information...just as was the case with the Gulf of Tonkin incident to put together a case for entering conflict. We can keep on doing this stuff as long as the US can hold together...there is nothing I can do about it. I just ask that those that support this policy answer truthfully....Has the end justified the means? If one is comfortable with answering "yes"...then fine. Just stop trying to act as if what we are doing is always right.

Damn it Fo, did you not read GGniners post? THe "fact" is that he moved all the WMD's to Syria.

Still with the reading comprehension. 35 years old my ass.

(07-13-2009 11:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I understand all that and certainly the world is a better place without Saddam and we have a right to track down criminals like Bin Ladin.....The fact is....we were wrong in intel and used that information...just as was the case with the Gulf of Tonkin incident to put together a case for entering conflict. We can keep on doing this stuff as long as the US can hold together...there is nothing I can do about it. I just ask that those that support this policy answer truthfully....Has the end justified the means? If one is comfortable with answering "yes"...then fine. Just stop trying to act as if what we are doing is always right.

Your arguing from the pressuposition that they knew the intel was wrong, and didn't correct it and in fact acted on it knowing it was wrong.

the WMD issue aside, as I already pointed out they had a strong case to remove Saddam Hussein without the WMD issue, outlined in the War Resolution.


Things like honoring Contracts for example, say the Cease Fire Agreement which Saddam violated the terms of constantly for a decade, each instance being a case to resume hostilities.

Perhaps you don't give a rip about Contracts though, just grabbing the ankles

(07-13-2009 01:05 PM)GGniner Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 11:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I understand all that and certainly the world is a better place without Saddam and we have a right to track down criminals like Bin Ladin.....The fact is....we were wrong in intel and used that information...just as was the case with the Gulf of Tonkin incident to put together a case for entering conflict. We can keep on doing this stuff as long as the US can hold together...there is nothing I can do about it. I just ask that those that support this policy answer truthfully....Has the end justified the means? If one is comfortable with answering "yes"...then fine. Just stop trying to act as if what we are doing is always right.

Your arguing from the pressuposition that they knew the intel was wrong, and didn't correct it and in fact acted on it knowing it was wrong.

the WMD issue aside, as I already pointed out they had a strong case to remove Saddam Hussein without the WMD issue, outlined in the War Resolution.


Things like honoring Contracts for example, say the Cease Fire Agreement which Saddam violated the terms of constantly for a decade, each instance being a case to resume hostilities.

Perhaps you don't give a rip about Contracts though, just grabbing the ankles

There were those that KNEW it was wrong and were ignored..right up to the slam dunking and after.

Actually you are correct...I really do not care WTF some 2 bit dictator that poses no threat to this land mass does. When the Mexicans or Canadians start posing a threat...then call me concerned.

It would seem the ones that grabbed ankles on this one were those that f'd this up. I hope they can live with the lives of the dead on their consciences.

Quote:"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Yeah, ALLLL those people were mislead by the "evil" Bush administration. Sell crazy some place else.

(07-13-2009 01:20 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

Quote:"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Yeah, ALLLL those people were mislead by the "evil" Bush administration. Sell crazy some place else.

Oh..You are correct...The Bush admnistration is not alone here. There is plenty of blame to go around. Thank you for pointing that out. They just were the ones to make the case for war using this stuff. I don't consider Bush evil or even blame him. He trusted those around him to gather the correct info and they failed. I trusted Colin Powell. His word was enough for me. I will not put my trust in these people again.

How many more times will these situations occur before people stop believing those in power when it comes to the initiation of conflicts?

I'm sorry...I don't have much confidence in them now...Call me crazy if you wish.

Clinton should have gone after Hussein the minute that douchebag fired a missile at our pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. I've ALWAYS contended that. My philosophy? Don't **** with us. You want to say we're no different, or that all countries should be treated the same, I disagree. There IS a moral compass here and we are the ones favored. This is a free country.

(07-13-2009 01:39 PM)Rebel Wrote:  Clinton should have gone after Hussein the minute that douchebag fired a missile at our pilots patrolling the no-fly zones. I've ALWAYS contended that. My philosophy? Don't **** with us. You want to say we're no different, or that all countries should be treated the same, I disagree. There IS a moral compass here and we are the ones favored. This is a free country.

I have zero problem retaliating after a direct attack even though I may have issues with being there in the first place. I also have no problem with preemptive strikes against imminent attack. I just want the info as to that attack to be reliable. I have questions as to our intel gathering right now. What would make be believe the accuracy of what is being reported? The intelligence community has some things to work on IMO. I hope they get this straightened out so we can avoid future f'ups and needlessly lost lives.

Fo, you have to make a distinction here between what you as a citizen can know based on your ability to collect information and intelligence, and on what you simply have to believe if you are told by your government (save the obvious response, we know it ;.)

The American citizenry had no reason to believe that intel wasn't correct. All signs as well point that all sections of US Government in agreement as to Iraqi WMD capacity. I do not believe that there have been any documents publically released, or divulged by the NYT, that show any movement of the intel or military community, that after full study of the inteligence, did not support a concern about Iraqi WMDs.

Any person who says they knew there were no WMD's is simply on the right side of guessing.

In 2003, all the worldwide historic and '03 current intel on Iraq pointed to WMD. Saying anything otherwise is nothing but armchair quarterbacking, and I make no judgement on those who supported the war in Iraq based on what is now understood as faulty intel.

While I consider myself rather astute on world events, I do remember making a post somewhere on the Intarwebs that (I paraphrase) "it's only a matter of hours before some Marines kick down the door of some non-descript building in the desert and come upon WMDs."

(07-13-2009 03:09 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Fo, you have to make a distinction here between what you as a citizen can know based on your ability to collect information and intelligence, and on what you simply have to believe if you are told by your government (save the obvious response, we know it ;.)

The American citizenry had no reason to believe that intel wasn't correct. All signs as well point that all sections of US Government in agreement as to Iraqi WMD capacity. I do not believe that there have been any documents publically released, or divulged by the NYT, that show any movement of the intel or military community, that after full study of the inteligence, did not support a concern about Iraqi WMDs.

Any person who says they knew there were no WMD's is simply on the right side of guessing.

In 2003, all the worldwide historic and '03 current intel on Iraq pointed to WMD. Saying anything otherwise is nothing but armchair quarterbacking, and I make no judgement on those who supported the war in Iraq based on what is now understood as faulty intel.

While I consider myself rather astute on world events, I do remember making a post somewhere on the Intarwebs that (I paraphrase) "it's only a matter of hours before some Marines kick down the door of some non-descript building in the desert and come upon WMDs."

I understand your point...but...since both of the major conflicts in my life were started with bogus and simply incorrect intel and now close to 70,000 servicemen have died in these conflicts.....I now have plenty of reason to NOT trust the claims of the government again when it is in regard to initiation of these conflicts.

(07-13-2009 12:28 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 12:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 12:04 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 11:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 10:47 AM)GGniner Wrote:  forget the WMD's that were shipped to Syria in all likelihood, later bombed by Israel a few years back(something was shipped anyway, and the Israelis bombed something quietly later on)

but forget those talking points of the Democrat Hacks Fo, read the resolution they voted on, a whole lot more than WMD is mentioned:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq...lution.htm

referenced in that policy is the 1998 Regime Change in iraq policy, passed overwhelmingly by the Senate under Clinton 98-0, and the Federal Indictment of Bin Laden(which mentions ties to Saddam and Iraq) in 1998


http://husseinandterror.com

I understand all that and certainly the world is a better place without Saddam and we have a right to track down criminals like Bin Ladin.....The fact is....we were wrong in intel and used that information...just as was the case with the Gulf of Tonkin incident to put together a case for entering conflict. We can keep on doing this stuff as long as the US can hold together...there is nothing I can do about it. I just ask that those that support this policy answer truthfully....Has the end justified the means? If one is comfortable with answering "yes"...then fine. Just stop trying to act as if what we are doing is always right.

Tinfoil hat conservatives at their best.

JFYI...I have equal dislike for liberal welfare,union and environmental thieves.

Being obsequious to SpottedTick, does nothing to change the color of your liberal tinfoil hat.

Did you just steal the "liberal tinfoil hat" term in the same thread where it was first used?

(07-13-2009 06:59 AM)dwr0109 Wrote:  Edit: Some facts about John Murtha

Left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to join the Marines out of a growing sense of obligation to his country during the Korean War. He earned the American Spirit Honor Medal, awarded to fewer than one in 10,000 recruits. He rose through the ranks to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia.

He then was assigned to the Second Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 1959, Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, Marine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from active duty until he volunteered for Vietnam in 1966-67, where he served as the S-2 intelligence officer for the 1st Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division and received the Bronze Star with Combat "V", two Purple Hearts and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry.

Sad thing is, you didn't write the above critique, and you rarely have an opinion, or a piece of text that you can call your own.

All I can say to that kind of Sterling Record and Service is .....

I AM GLAD I WAS IN THE ARMY and AWAY FROM THIS FOOL'S COMMAND !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Semper Fi Mutha Murtha ....

.

(07-13-2009 12:31 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Damn it Fo, did you not read GGniners post? THe "fact" is that he moved all the WMD's to Syria.

The "FACTS ARE", there Robs, Saddam MOVED a hell of a lot of something into Syria just as we were too hit Iraq for real this time and Saddam knew he was Burnt Toast.

If anyone knows what this massive Shipment was into Syria from Iraq just moments in time before the War Stared, it has not been released to any Public Outlet.

And Syria would have LOVED to help out an Old Friend such as Saddam and take his WMD's or WTF's .... you think the Syrian Leadership are fools ???

They knew Saddam was a Dead Man and they just were given the Middle Eastern Lotto to have and keep forever.

And one day, just like when they found the "buried Fighters Jets" in the Iraq Desert, they just may make you eat your words when they find a few other Buried Goodies in that 100 Thousand Square Miles of NOTHING BUT SAND.

"IT DON'T MEAN NUTHIN'" .......

.

(07-13-2009 06:59 AM)dwr0109 Wrote:  Sad thing is, you didn't write the above critique, and you rarely have an opinion, or a piece of text that you can call your own.

And what opinion did your post offer?

Here is what I've learned about Sum from his posted opinions in this forum:

He's conservative
He's pro military
He's pro military vet
He's spiritual
He's anti-abortion
He believes fanatical Islam is a threat to this country
He's anti-drug
He's tough on crime
He's pro gun
He's anti-gay marriage
He likes beer and whiskey but I don't know what brands he drinks
He thinks global warming is stupid
He thinks cap and trade is worse
He's been happily married for decades
He's a grandpa

My opinion of him is that he's a patriot, you know, one of the good guys.

All of us see things that we share in this forum without comment. I've done it. What's the big deal? I got a kick out of what he posted here.

(07-13-2009 12:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 12:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 12:04 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 11:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 10:47 AM)GGniner Wrote:  forget the WMD's that were shipped to Syria in all likelihood, later bombed by Israel a few years back(something was shipped anyway, and the Israelis bombed something quietly later on)

but forget those talking points of the Democrat Hacks Fo, read the resolution they voted on, a whole lot more than WMD is mentioned:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq...lution.htm

referenced in that policy is the 1998 Regime Change in iraq policy, passed overwhelmingly by the Senate under Clinton 98-0, and the Federal Indictment of Bin Laden(which mentions ties to Saddam and Iraq) in 1998


http://husseinandterror.com

I understand all that and certainly the world is a better place without Saddam and we have a right to track down criminals like Bin Ladin.....The fact is....we were wrong in intel and used that information...just as was the case with the Gulf of Tonkin incident to put together a case for entering conflict. We can keep on doing this stuff as long as the US can hold together...there is nothing I can do about it. I just ask that those that support this policy answer truthfully....Has the end justified the means? If one is comfortable with answering "yes"...then fine. Just stop trying to act as if what we are doing is always right.

Tinfoil hat conservatives at their best.

JFYI...I have equal dislike for liberal welfare,union and environmental thieves.

In other words, tinfoil hat liberals.

Yep.

(07-13-2009 12:28 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 12:10 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 12:04 PM)RockyMtnRamfan Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 11:54 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-13-2009 10:47 AM)GGniner Wrote:  forget the WMD's that were shipped to Syria in all likelihood, later bombed by Israel a few years back(something was shipped anyway, and the Israelis bombed something quietly later on)

but forget those talking points of the Democrat Hacks Fo, read the resolution they voted on, a whole lot more than WMD is mentioned:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/wariniraq...lution.htm

referenced in that policy is the 1998 Regime Change in iraq policy, passed overwhelmingly by the Senate under Clinton 98-0, and the Federal Indictment of Bin Laden(which mentions ties to Saddam and Iraq) in 1998


http://husseinandterror.com

I understand all that and certainly the world is a better place without Saddam and we have a right to track down criminals like Bin Ladin.....The fact is....we were wrong in intel and used that information...just as was the case with the Gulf of Tonkin incident to put together a case for entering conflict. We can keep on doing this stuff as long as the US can hold together...there is nothing I can do about it. I just ask that those that support this policy answer truthfully....Has the end justified the means? If one is comfortable with answering "yes"...then fine. Just stop trying to act as if what we are doing is always right.

Tinfoil hat conservatives at their best.

JFYI...I have equal dislike for liberal welfare,union and environmental thieves.

Being obsequious to SpottedTick, does nothing to change the color of your liberal tinfoil hat.

If my comment was construed as being in agreement...that was not my intent. I see though how it could have been.

As for being a liberal....Well...Yes..I am....Classically speaking.

I'm a classical liberal as well. ....but "liberal" has been perverted and taken over by the Communists since 1960.

(07-13-2009 10:38 PM)Rebel Wrote:  I'm a classical liberal as well. ....but "liberal" has been perverted and taken over by the Communists since 1960.

Yes...Just as Libertarianism has been perverted by Republicans. Someone please explain to me how anyone that supports the initiation of force on their neighbors could be a Libertarian? When I joined the LP in 1982 the main platform was the "non initiation of force axiom".... You can't support the drug war,interventionism,taxation,public education and a criminal justice system that locks up non violent offenders and be a Libertarian. You may call yourself one..but..you are just a Lino.....a la....Bob Barr

How about to protect the fuckin' country, light brite? The Constitution isn't a GDamn suicide pact. Would you say our founders were classical liberals? The same founders who went after the Barbary Pirates? GDamnit! Those damn neocons!!! /sarcasm.

Sense, you make none.