How many years should we stay in Iraq?

[Disco Stu]

You forgot another important poll option:

As long as it keeps bringing in revenue to Southern MD Via PAX River. Which is the main reason most of these hillbillies support the war... they either work on defense contracts or have family who do.

BAH!!!! This was should never have been started. For the simple fact its a waste of $$$. If you hillbillies are so gung-ho about it, go volunteer for it.

 

[tater]

BAH!!!! This was should never have been started. For the simple fact its a waste of $$$. If you hillbillies are so gung-ho about it, go volunteer for it.

I did volunteer for it. 8 years in the service. If it wasn't for our (hillbilly) military, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now. Glad people like you weren't in charge when the we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Was WW2 a waste of money too?

 

[mainman]

I did volunteer for it. 8 years in the service. If it wasn't for our (hillbilly) military, we'd all be speaking German or Japanese right now. Glad people like you weren't in charge when the we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Was WW2 a waste of money too?

Holla at ya boy! Sup fool?

 

[tater]

Holla at ya boy! Sup fool?

Nuttin much. Whass happenin??


Hey, do me a favor and make (and send) me some of that awesome jumbalaya (sp?). I'll give ya a dollar

 

[Disco Stu]

Wasn't it your Commander In Chief who claimed that the war is over and mission accomplished or some crap? So what the hell are we doing over there now? Wasting taxpayer dollars to feed the pockets of some unethical defense contractors. Way to go! Glad to see we are accomplishing so much over there. But hell, it brings contracts to the DoD community so it must be o.k. right? And to compare this to WW2 is like apples and a pile of crap.

"Blah blah blah" same old crap.

 

[SamSpade]

Wasn't it your Commander In Chief who claimed that the war is over and mission accomplished or some crap? So what the hell are we doing over there now? Wasting taxpayer dollars to feed the pockets of some unethical defense contractors. Way to go! Glad to see we are accomplishing so much over there. But hell, it brings contracts to the DoD community so it must be o.k. right? And to compare this to WW2 is like apples and a pile of crap.

"Blah blah blah" same old crap.

Unless you're not from this country - he is your Commander in Chief. As was Bill Clinton and every President before him.

Secondly he didn't say the war was over - he DID say that the mission accomplished sign shown behind him was placed by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Ask them if their mission was accomplished - because they're home now.

And there is absolutely no question that the objective of "taking" the country and ousting Saddam was completed four years ago. Maybe I'm missing something - did Iraq NOT form a new government, have new elections and form a democracy? Wasn't that the objective?

I love how critics of the war choose to speak out both sides of their mouth, wanting to minimize our presence as "occupiers" - which you can't do until the war is "over" - but continue to comment on how it is NOT over. Which is it?

 

[PsyOps]

Unless you're not from this country - he is your Commander in Chief. As was Bill Clinton and every President before him.

Secondly he didn't say the war was over - he DID say that the mission accomplished sign shown behind him was placed by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Ask them if their mission was accomplished - because they're home now.

And there is absolutely no question that the objective of "taking" the country and ousting Saddam was completed four years ago. Maybe I'm missing something - did Iraq NOT form a new government, have new elections and form a democracy? Wasn't that the objective?

I love how critics of the war choose to speak out both sides of their mouth, wanting to minimize our presence as "occupiers" - which you can't do until the war is "over" - but continue to comment on how it is NOT over. Which is it?

Actually, if I remember Bush's speech he said that major combat operations were over. He did not say the war was over. But, in hindsight (which is easy to use) it seems major combat ops weren't over either. As much as I got good feelings on that day listening to his speech, hindsight (there it is again) tells me it may not have been the greatest idea.

Or maybe we shouldn't try to rely on hindsight too much with some of these things. You think?

 

[Foxhound]

You forgot another important poll option:

As long as it keeps bringing in revenue to Southern MD Via PAX River. Which is the main reason most of these hillbillies support the war... they either work on defense contracts or have family who do.

BAH!!!! This was should never have been started. For the simple fact its a waste of $$$. If you hillbillies are so gung-ho about it, go volunteer for it.

Sounds like the poll didn't go as planned!!

 

[forestal]

That banner was part of Herr Rove's propaganda machine.

The real power in Iraq is vested with the religious leaders, and THAT is not a Democracy.

Unless you're not from this country - he is your Commander in Chief. As was Bill Clinton and every President before him.

Secondly he didn't say the war was over - he DID say that the mission accomplished sign shown behind him was placed by members of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Ask them if their mission was accomplished - because they're home now.

And there is absolutely no question that the objective of "taking" the country and ousting Saddam was completed four years ago. Maybe I'm missing something - did Iraq NOT form a new government, have new elections and form a democracy? Wasn't that the objective?

I love how critics of the war choose to speak out both sides of their mouth, wanting to minimize our presence as "occupiers" - which you can't do until the war is "over" - but continue to comment on how it is NOT over. Which is it?

 

[forestal]

ahahah, earth to Potato Head, no Iraqis were involved in the attacks on 9/11. Neither Saddam, nor the Iranians wanted anything to do with Al Qaeda.

If you don't believe me, just ask your idiot president, he'll tell you the same thing.

You think it's bad now.... wait and see what happens if the Dems push their agenda for their goal of failure for the U.S.A. (and G.W.) to supposedly help them win in '08. Pathetic that these people would rather undermine our troops and have us LOSE A WAR and threaten our future security from these crazy radicals that want to kill ALL OF US, than to have us, our military (and G.W.) succeed. Another thing.... and I wish the conservatives and Bush would harp on it more.... but it makes me sick when I hear about Libs saying "why did we even go to Iraq, they didn't fly planes into the towers". Well, when G.W. was standing on that smoking mound on 9/11, and also in his address just after that... (back when the whole country was united in wanting justice).... He said that we would root them out wherever they were AND anyone who supported and harbored them, no matter how long it took. Paraphrasing, of course.

 

[PsyOps]

ahahah, earth to Potato Head, no Iraqis were involved in the attacks on 9/11. Neither Saddam, nor the Iranians wanted anything to do with Al Qaeda.

If you don't believe me, just ask your idiot president, he'll tell you the same thing.

Hey Yogi... Every time someone says anything about justifying our invasion of Iraq your first inclination is to whip out your talking point "Iraq had nothing to do with 911". Tater didn't say Iraq had anything to do with 911. What Tater did say was:

[Bush] said that we would root [al Qaeda] out wherever they were AND anyone who supported and harbored them, no matter how long it took.

And you are wrong, and apparently ignored it when I posted it before that there wasn't as much hate between Saddam and al Qaeda as you are trying to make us believe:

After the September 11 attacks, Zarqawi again traveled to Afghanistan and joined Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters resisting the U.S.-led invasion.[15] He was allegedly wounded in a U.S. bombardment. He moved to Iran to re-organize al-Tawhid, his former militant organization. There is no doubt that Zarqawi then traveled to Iraq to have his wounded leg treated at a hospital run by Uday Hussein. In the summer of 2002, Zarqawi was reported to have settled in northern Iraq, where he joined the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group

Can you please explain why Saddam's son, if they hated al Qaeda so much, would allow Zarqawi in Iraq, treat him for his injuries then allow Zarqawi to establish himself with Ansar al-Islam , a terrorist organization within Iraq?

 

[PsyOps]

That banner was part of Herr Rove's propaganda machine.

The real power in Iraq is vested with the religious leaders, and THAT is not a Democracy.

So, once again how do you explain away the 75% of qualified voters in Iraq risking their lives to vote for their Constitution and new government? Was that just a figment of our imagination? If it's not a sign of democracy then perhaps we better rethink our election processes in this country.

 

[forestal]

Sure, It's all lies, like everything used to prop up this useless war in Iraq..



In 2004, Newsweek reported that some "senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad" had come to believe that he still had his original legs.<sup id="_ref-msnbc3_0" class="reference">[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi#_note-msnbc3"][101]</sup> Knight Ridder later reported that the leg amputation was something "officials now acknowledge was incorrect."<sup id="_ref-knightridder_0" class="reference">[102]</sup>

[/url]

But Newsweek reported in a March 3, 2003, article that U.S. officials don't regard Zarqawi's treatment as definitive evidence of complicity with Hussein:

American officials know only a few basic facts about Zarqawi's two-month stay in Baghdad last summer. A hospital treated him for injuries sustained in Afghanistan. His leg was amputated, and he was fitted with a prosthesis. The Iraqi government's role in arranging for the treatment is "unknown," U.S. officials confess, and the hospitalization does not prove any Iraqi government "complicity."

​

More recently, on March 22, Newsweek suggested that even the basic intelligence about Zarqawi's medical care is faulty:

Before the Iraq war, one article of indictment against Saddam was that he had supplied Zarqawi with medical treatment in Baghdad -- including a prosthetic leg -- after the latter was badly wounded in Afghanistan. But that appears to have been based on more bad intel. Senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad tell Newsweek they are now convinced Zarqawi has two fully functioning legs.​

​

Hey Yogi... Every time someone says anything about justifying our invasion of Iraq your first inclination is to whip out your talking point "Iraq had nothing to do with 911". Tater didn't say Iraq had anything to do with 911. What Tater did say was:

And you are wrong, and apparently ignored it when I posted it before that there wasn't as much hate between Saddam and al Qaeda as you are trying to make us believe:


Can you please explain why Saddam's son, if they hated al Qaeda so much, would allow Zarqawi in Iraq, treat him for his injuries then allow Zarqawi to establish himself with Ansar al-Islam , a terrorist organization within Iraq?

 

[PsyOps]

Sure, It's all lies, like everything used to prop up this useless war in Iraq..



In 2004, Newsweek reported that some "senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad" had come to believe that he still had his original legs.<sup id="_ref-msnbc3_0" class="reference">[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi#_note-msnbc3"][101]</sup> Knight Ridder later reported that the leg amputation was something "officials now acknowledge was incorrect."<sup id="_ref-knightridder_0" class="reference">[102]</sup>
[/url]

But Newsweek reported in a March 3, 2003, article that U.S. officials don't regard Zarqawi's treatment as definitive evidence of complicity with Hussein:

American officials know only a few basic facts about Zarqawi's two-month stay in Baghdad last summer. A hospital treated him for injuries sustained in Afghanistan. His leg was amputated, and he was fitted with a prosthesis. The Iraqi government's role in arranging for the treatment is "unknown," U.S. officials confess, and the hospitalization does not prove any Iraqi government "complicity."

​

More recently, on March 22, Newsweek suggested that even the basic intelligence about Zarqawi's medical care is faulty:

Before the Iraq war, one article of indictment against Saddam was that he had supplied Zarqawi with medical treatment in Baghdad -- including a prosthetic leg -- after the latter was badly wounded in Afghanistan. But that appears to have been based on more bad intel. Senior U.S. military officials in Baghdad tell Newsweek they are now convinced Zarqawi has two fully functioning legs.​

​

I don't give one rat's tail about Zarqawi's medical treatment. It's an accepted fact, across all fronts, that Zarqawi found his way into Iraq, before the invasion, with full knowledge of the Iraqi Government, given safe haven and allowed to establish himself with Ansar al-Islam, then set up his own al Qaeda cell in Iraq. The rest is indisputable history.

 

[Disco Stu]

These savages have been killing each other for religion for over a thousand years, all over who worships Allah the right way.

If you people thing we can bring a permanant democracy over there, you are fools. I dont care how big the defense budget gets, this is about religion. You CANNOT force people to play nice over there!!!!!!

 

[PsyOps]

If you people thin[k] we can bring a permanant democracy over there, you are fools.

I wonder how many people were saying the same thing when America was being established through bloody and brutal war?

 

[forestal]

Nobody brought us Democracy. We got it for ourselves.

Big difference between us and some country who considers everything we do for them to be tainted.

I wonder how many people were saying the same thing when America was being established through bloody and brutal war?

 

[Mikeinsmd]

Nobody brought us Democracy. We got it for ourselves.

Big difference between us and some country who considers everything we do for them to be tainted.

Who said it was brought to us? He said we fought for it dumbass!! Reading comprehension is OBVIOUSLY beyond your capabilities. i.e. You're stupid as a bag of hammers.

Did your parents have any kids that weren't born retarded??

 

[forestal]

Probably you forgot how to think.

Take a little more time, and it might make sense to you.

Who said it was brought to us? He said we fought for it dumbass!! Reading comprehension is OBVIOUSLY beyond your capabilities. i.e. You're stupid as a bag of hammers.

Did your parents have any kids that weren't born retarded??

 

[PsyOps]

Did your parents have any kids that weren't born retarded??

I have to say that forestal is out there but I fail to see where it requires such comments. :shrug: