American Beheaded?

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: DougK62
I can't believe some of you are turning this into another Republican vs. Democrat pissing contest. You should be fvcking ashamed of yourselves :|

Who says this is a Republican versus Democrat issue? I'm a Republican!

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: DougK62
I can't believe some of you are turning this into another Republican vs. Democrat pissing contest. You should be fvcking ashamed of yourselves :|

Who said anything about R vs D? You should be ashamed for misunderstanding.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: DougK62
I can't believe some of you are turning this into another Republican vs. Democrat pissing contest. You should be fvcking ashamed of yourselves :|

Who said anything about R vs D? You should be ashamed for misunderstanding.

If you have any critical reading skills at all it's plain to see.

 

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: DougK62
I can't believe some of you are turning this into another Republican vs. Democrat pissing contest. You should be fvcking ashamed of yourselves :|

Who said anything about R vs D? You should be ashamed for misunderstanding.

If you have any critical reading skills at all it's plain to see.

I think you're the one who needs to brush up on critical reading. We're talking about the possible failure of American intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq by American forces. Now that there's a so-called power vacuum created by the American decimation of any and all sources of Iraqi power, Al Qaeda forces are free to move into Iraq and commit acts like the decapitation of American civilians. If we had not invaded Iraq, there would be no beheading of American civilians and there would not be close to 1000 U.S. soldiers dead for a 'link' that's sketchy at best.

 

[Thraxen]

If we had not invaded Iraq, there would be no beheading of American civilians and there would not be close to 1000 U.S. soldiers dead for a 'link' that's sketchy at best.

Maybe... maybe not. Seems we had a few thousand dead civilians at WTC before invading.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

If we had not invaded Iraq, there would be no beheading of American civilians and there would not be close to 1000 U.S. soldiers dead for a 'link' that's sketchy at best.

Maybe... maybe not. Seems we had a few thousand dead civilians at WTC before invading.

Seems we already invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for that and deposed the regime that quartered and supported those responsible. It also seems that we diverted a large amount of our armed forces for an unnecessary excursion when we could have used those same forces for securing the Afghani population and rooting out the last vestiges of the Taliban.

 

[Thraxen]

Seems we already invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for that and deposed the regime that quartered and supported those responsible. It also seems that we diverted a large amount of our armed forces for an unnecessary excursion when we could have used those same forces for securing the Afghani population and rooting out the last vestiges of the Taliban.

You totally missed the point.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Seems we already invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for that and deposed the regime that quartered and supported those responsible. It also seems that we diverted a large amount of our armed forces for an unnecessary excursion when we could have used those same forces for securing the Afghani population and rooting out the last vestiges of the Taliban.

You totally missed the point.

And what was the point?

 

[beer]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

If we had not invaded Iraq, there would be no beheading of American civilians and there would not be close to 1000 U.S. soldiers dead for a 'link' that's sketchy at best.

Maybe... maybe not. Seems we had a few thousand dead civilians at WTC before invading.

None of which have been ever, ever even REMOTELY LINKED TO SADDAM

The rest of the world sees it. The entire UN sees it. Hans Blix himself said that there is absolutely no WMDs in Iraq and that they have not existed in almost a decade. And Saddam and AlQuada have such different ideologies that they have NOTHING in common.

This country has failed to prove even the slightest, most insignificant link of any collaboration between saddam and bin laden.

 

[beer]

Oh, and by the way, if we weren't dicking around with 150,000 troops in Iraq, maybe we could have stabalized afghanistan and hunted down bin laden by now.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: beer

Originally posted by: Thraxen

If we had not invaded Iraq, there would be no beheading of American civilians and there would not be close to 1000 U.S. soldiers dead for a 'link' that's sketchy at best.

Maybe... maybe not. Seems we had a few thousand dead civilians at WTC before invading.

None of which have been ever, ever even REMOTELY LINKED TO SADDAM

The rest of the world sees it. The entire UN sees it. Hans Blix himself said that there is absolutely no WMDs in Iraq and that they have not existed in almost a decade. And Saddam and AlQuada have such different ideologies that they have NOTHING in common.

This country has failed to prove even the slightest, most insignificant link of any collaboration between saddam and bin laden.

That's something that doesn't really get talked about often enough - that Hussein and bin Laden really did hate each other, and were diametrically opposed over issues of religion and government.

 

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Seems we already invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for that and deposed the regime that quartered and supported those responsible. It also seems that we diverted a large amount of our armed forces for an unnecessary excursion when we could have used those same forces for securing the Afghani population and rooting out the last vestiges of the Taliban.

You totally missed the point.

And that point was? I love when people say things like, "You missed the point," or, "You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you?" and then fail to actually explain that point. To me, such a response indicates that the person knows they've been bested.

Anyway, what is the point? 3000 people died in the WTC attacks. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was clearly responsible for aiding and comforting those who planned the attack. If we had occupied Afghanistan with the troops that are now in Iraq, the Taliban wouldn't be regrouping on the fringes of a now free-for-all country, like they're doing now in Afghanistan.

Taliban kill Afghan soldiers.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Seems we already invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for that and deposed the regime that quartered and supported those responsible. It also seems that we diverted a large amount of our armed forces for an unnecessary excursion when we could have used those same forces for securing the Afghani population and rooting out the last vestiges of the Taliban.

You totally missed the point.

And what was the point?

The point is that this is not a tit for tat thing. This is a destroying Americas enemies thing.

 

[Thraxen]

Anyway, what is the point? 3000 people died in the WTC attacks. If we had occupied Afghanistan with the troops that are now in Iraq, the Taliban wouldn't be regrouping on the fringes of a now free-for-all country, like they're doing now in Afghanistan.

Damn, people... it wasn't that difficult to understand. You said things like that wouldn't be happening if we hadn't invaded Iraq and I pointed out that things like that were happening well before.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Seems we already invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for that and deposed the regime that quartered and supported those responsible. It also seems that we diverted a large amount of our armed forces for an unnecessary excursion when we could have used those same forces for securing the Afghani population and rooting out the last vestiges of the Taliban.

You totally missed the point.

And what was the point?

The point is that this is not a tit for tat thing. This is a destroying Americas enemies thing.

It seems as though, if we were serious about rooting out Al Queda, we would have focused on stabilizing the deposed regime of the country we just invaded (with good cause) and on rooting out the remnants of the terrorist organization that existed there.

 

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Seems we already invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for that and deposed the regime that quartered and supported those responsible. It also seems that we diverted a large amount of our armed forces for an unnecessary excursion when we could have used those same forces for securing the Afghani population and rooting out the last vestiges of the Taliban.

You totally missed the point.

And what was the point?

The point is that this is not a tit for tat thing. This is a destroying Americas enemies thing.

Where is North Korea on your 'map' of America's enemies? Or do you not yet have enough PROOF that they're actually a danger to America?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Anyway, what is the point? 3000 people died in the WTC attacks. If we had occupied Afghanistan with the troops that are now in Iraq, the Taliban wouldn't be regrouping on the fringes of a now free-for-all country, like they're doing now in Afghanistan.

Damn people... it wasn't that difficult to understand. You said things like that wouldn't be happening if hadn't invaded Iraq and I pointed out that things like that were happening well before.

I'm asking you to explain your point, in light of my post.

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: jumpr
How is that a problem? We haven't been shown any evidence to indicate otherwise. Why don't you start subscribing to the American ideal of innocent until proven guilty? Iraq's links to al-Qaeda are non-existent until they're proven. You're assuming there are links with absolutely no evidence to prove such a claim.

Show me cold, hard facts, and I'll tell you that the deaths of nearly 1000 U.S. soldiers were worth it. Until then, I'll sit here waiting for the evidence.

If this act does turn out to be something comitted by Al Queda then I assume you would be of the belief that they only entered into this after we began our movement against Hussein...personally I find it hard to buy that they would just jump in now without any previous ties, I mean geographically they are close, they are/were both in the same business of ruling by fear and power, and they both had serious grudges against the US...to assume there was no connection IMHO seems naive, however unfortunately there is nothing as *concrete* presented to us as the liberals would like, I feel though that even if definitive proof did surface the libs would write it off using their standard denial practices.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: bozack
If this act does turn out to be something comitted by Al Queda then I assume you would be of the belief that they only entered into this after we began our movement against Hussein...personally I find it hard to buy that they would just jump in now without any previous ties, I mean geographically they are close, they are/were both in the same business of ruling by fear and power, and they both had serious grudges against the US...to assume there was no connection IMHO seems naive, however unfortunately there is nothing as *concrete* presented to us as the liberals would like, I feel though that even if definitive proof did surface the libs would write it off using their standard denial practices.

And the fact that one was a strictly secular ruler and the other a regime of religious fanatics who seek nothing less than the rule of Islam in government doesn't make a connection unlikely?

You know, when I heard that Hussein had the ability to launch bio/chem/nuclear weapons within 15 minutes, I supported his deposal immediately. After I found I'd been taken for a fool my attitude changed a little bit. I'm surprised yours hasn't.

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: jumpr

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Seems we already invaded Afghanistan in retaliation for that and deposed the regime that quartered and supported those responsible. It also seems that we diverted a large amount of our armed forces for an unnecessary excursion when we could have used those same forces for securing the Afghani population and rooting out the last vestiges of the Taliban.

You totally missed the point.

And what was the point?

The point is that this is not a tit for tat thing. This is a destroying Americas enemies thing.

Where is North Korea on your 'map' of America's enemies? Or do you not yet have enough PROOF that they're actually a danger to America?

I happen to have kin seving in the Army in Iraq and NK. Yes, as pointed out by President Bush, NK is an enemy of the US. If they want to start something with us, we will respond. My nephew in NK is being redeployed to FT. Hood for an eventual rotation to Iraq. We are handing over a good majority of watching over NK to the Republic of Korea (South Korea).

 

[beer]

I love it how this thread is now the exact.Same.As.Every.Other.Thread.On.The.Iraq.War. No one is going to change anybody's opinion so why even waste time anymore

 

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: jumpr
How is that a problem? We haven't been shown any evidence to indicate otherwise. Why don't you start subscribing to the American ideal of innocent until proven guilty? Iraq's links to al-Qaeda are non-existent until they're proven. You're assuming there are links with absolutely no evidence to prove such a claim.

Show me cold, hard facts, and I'll tell you that the deaths of nearly 1000 U.S. soldiers were worth it. Until then, I'll sit here waiting for the evidence.

If this act does turn out to be something comitted by Al Queda then I assume you would be of the belief that they only entered into this after we began our movement against Hussein...personally I find it hard to buy that they would just jump in now without any previous ties, I mean geographically they are close, they are/were both in the same business of ruling by fear and power, and they both had serious grudges against the US...to assume there was no connection IMHO seems naive, however unfortunately there is nothing as *concrete* presented to us as the liberals would like, I feel though that even if definitive proof did surface the libs would write it off using their standard denial practices.

Please, show me proof that Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime in Iraq were 'collaborators.' As Osorum said before, Iraq and AQ were quite opposed on issues of religion and government. Just because they both hate America and were in nearby countries, it doesn't mean they were working together.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
I happen to have kin seving in the Army in Iraq and NK. Yes, as pointed out by President Bush, NK is an enemy of the US. If they want to start something with us, we will respond. My nephew in NK is being redeployed to FT. Hood for an eventual rotation to Iraq. We are handing over a good majority of watching over NK to the Republic of Korea (South Korea).

I'm asking you again, why did we suddenly shift to Iraq instead of concentrating on Afghanistan?

 

Originally posted by: FelixDeKat
Yes, as pointed out by President Bush, NK is an enemy of the US. If they want to start something with us, we will respond.

When did Iraq start something with us?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: beer
I love it how this thread is now the exact.Same.As.Every.Other.Thread.On.The.Iraq.War. No one is going to change anybody's opinion so why even waste time anymore

You know what I hate about being in my position? The traditional conservative kiddos on campus support the war, because they're good little conservative kids who'll tow the party line; the liberals are for the most part raving left fools. It's very lonely sitting in the middle.