Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
This part is true.Originally posted by: Dari
This was on Meet the Press this morning.
This part is empty partisan BS. Since you claim to be a Democrat, I will assume you meant, "Bush did put his business buddies' interests before that of America and the American people ... and will continue to do so if re-elected."So much for standing up for America. I guess should any crisis arise, Kerry would put the international community's interests before that of the United States.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This part is true.Originally posted by: Dari
This was on Meet the Press this morning.
This part is empty partisan BS. Since you claim to be a Democrat, I will assume you meant, "Bush did put his business buddies' interests before that of America and the American people ... and will continue to do so if re-elected."So much for standing up for America. I guess should any crisis arise, Kerry would put the international community's interests before that of the United States.
Dari, you forgot to mention how Dean also said Bush was trying to divert attention by yapping about who supported what and when, that Kerry would be much better at fighting terrorism than Bush, and that the Bush administration lied to get us into Iraq.
On the bright side, it was nice to see Condi Rice finally make a truthful statement. She said, and I quote, "The President is the President." It's not much, but a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Of course she immediately became evasive again when Russert asked her about testifying under oath to the 9/11 Commission. One has to wonder why Bush and his minions are so reluctant to be truthful about what they knew and did before 9/11.
And your delusions of Granduer.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This part is true.Originally posted by: Dari
This was on Meet the Press this morning.
This part is empty partisan BS. Since you claim to be a Democrat, I will assume you meant, "Bush did put his business buddies' interests before that of America and the American people ... and will continue to do so if re-elected."So much for standing up for America. I guess should any crisis arise, Kerry would put the international community's interests before that of the United States.
Dari, you forgot to mention how Dean also said Bush was trying to divert attention by yapping about who supported what and when, that Kerry would be much better at fighting terrorism than Bush, and that the Bush administration lied to get us into Iraq.
On the bright side, it was nice to see Condi Rice finally make a truthful statement. She said, and I quote, "The President is the President." It's not much, but a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Of course she immediately became evasive again when Russert asked her about testifying under oath to the 9/11 Commission. One has to wonder why Bush and his minions are so reluctant to be truthful about what they knew and did before 9/11.
Howard Dean also said that Kerry would've acted in the same manner as Bush senior during the first Gulf War...a war Kerry voted against. Dean and Kerry may be habitual liars but they usually regurgitate the truth every now and then. The internationalist quip is the only thing that Kerry has been consistant about within the last thirty years. In the early 1970s he said that the United States shouldn't go to war unless it was under the aegis of the United Nations. He still believes this today.
Oh, that and the fact that he likes to marry rich women.
BTW, I'd recommend that you leave my party affiliation out of this. As you've seen, it's out of synch with my foreign and economic policies.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And your delusions of Granduer.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This part is true.Originally posted by: Dari
This was on Meet the Press this morning.
This part is empty partisan BS. Since you claim to be a Democrat, I will assume you meant, "Bush did put his business buddies' interests before that of America and the American people ... and will continue to do so if re-elected."So much for standing up for America. I guess should any crisis arise, Kerry would put the international community's interests before that of the United States.
Dari, you forgot to mention how Dean also said Bush was trying to divert attention by yapping about who supported what and when, that Kerry would be much better at fighting terrorism than Bush, and that the Bush administration lied to get us into Iraq.
On the bright side, it was nice to see Condi Rice finally make a truthful statement. She said, and I quote, "The President is the President." It's not much, but a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Of course she immediately became evasive again when Russert asked her about testifying under oath to the 9/11 Commission. One has to wonder why Bush and his minions are so reluctant to be truthful about what they knew and did before 9/11.
Howard Dean also said that Kerry would've acted in the same manner as Bush senior during the first Gulf War...a war Kerry voted against. Dean and Kerry may be habitual liars but they usually regurgitate the truth every now and then. The internationalist quip is the only thing that Kerry has been consistant about within the last thirty years. In the early 1970s he said that the United States shouldn't go to war unless it was under the aegis of the United Nations. He still believes this today.
Oh, that and the fact that he likes to marry rich women.
BTW, I'd recommend that you leave my party affiliation out of this. As you've seen, it's out of synch with my foreign and economic policies.
No I'm not a Democrat.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
And your delusions of Granduer.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This part is true.Originally posted by: Dari
This was on Meet the Press this morning.
This part is empty partisan BS. Since you claim to be a Democrat, I will assume you meant, "Bush did put his business buddies' interests before that of America and the American people ... and will continue to do so if re-elected."So much for standing up for America. I guess should any crisis arise, Kerry would put the international community's interests before that of the United States.
Dari, you forgot to mention how Dean also said Bush was trying to divert attention by yapping about who supported what and when, that Kerry would be much better at fighting terrorism than Bush, and that the Bush administration lied to get us into Iraq.
On the bright side, it was nice to see Condi Rice finally make a truthful statement. She said, and I quote, "The President is the President." It's not much, but a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Of course she immediately became evasive again when Russert asked her about testifying under oath to the 9/11 Commission. One has to wonder why Bush and his minions are so reluctant to be truthful about what they knew and did before 9/11.
Howard Dean also said that Kerry would've acted in the same manner as Bush senior during the first Gulf War...a war Kerry voted against. Dean and Kerry may be habitual liars but they usually regurgitate the truth every now and then. The internationalist quip is the only thing that Kerry has been consistant about within the last thirty years. In the early 1970s he said that the United States shouldn't go to war unless it was under the aegis of the United Nations. He still believes this today.
Oh, that and the fact that he likes to marry rich women.
BTW, I'd recommend that you leave my party affiliation out of this. As you've seen, it's out of synch with my foreign and economic policies.
Did you vote for Kerry for the Senate? How about the Democratic Primaries?
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money, and hundreds of soldiers' lives.
Bush is an internationalist now too, since he wants UN back in Iraq?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040314/w031416.html
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money,
Fsck them, they aren't worth one American life. If they were so for us being there you can bet that we'd have all the names of the perpertrators blowing up American Soldiers with roadside bombs.Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money, and hundreds of soldiers' lives.
Bush is an internationalist now too, since he wants UN back in Iraq?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040314/w031416.html
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money,
That is ONLY CONJECTURE on your part it may take decades to know how the whole Iraq thing plays out........
BTW a few million people in Iraq disagree with you
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fsck them, they aren't worth one American life. If they were so for us being there you can bet that we'd have all the names of the perpertrators blowing up American Soldiers with roadside bombs.Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money, and hundreds of soldiers' lives.
Bush is an internationalist now too, since he wants UN back in Iraq?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040314/w031416.html
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money,
That is ONLY CONJECTURE on your part it may take decades to know how the whole Iraq thing plays out........
BTW a few million people in Iraq disagree with you
What's so racist about it?Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fsck them, they aren't worth one American life. If they were so for us being there you can bet that we'd have all the names of the perpertrators blowing up American Soldiers with roadside bombs.Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money, and hundreds of soldiers' lives.
Bush is an internationalist now too, since he wants UN back in Iraq?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040314/w031416.html
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money,
That is ONLY CONJECTURE on your part it may take decades to know how the whole Iraq thing plays out........
BTW a few million people in Iraq disagree with you
Those Iraqis would tend to disagree with you. And that's a very racist statement.
Perhaps you should look up the word "racist". There are other adjectives you might be able to stick in that sentence. "Racist" isn't one of them.Originally posted by: Dari
Those Iraqis would tend to disagree with you. And that's a very racist statement.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What's so racist about it?Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fsck them, they aren't worth one American life. If they were so for us being there you can bet that we'd have all the names of the perpertrators blowing up American Soldiers with roadside bombs.Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money, and hundreds of soldiers' lives.
Bush is an internationalist now too, since he wants UN back in Iraq?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040314/w031416.html
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money,
That is ONLY CONJECTURE on your part it may take decades to know how the whole Iraq thing plays out........
BTW a few million people in Iraq disagree with you
Those Iraqis would tend to disagree with you. And that's a very racist statement.
Easy you are.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What's so racist about it?Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fsck them, they aren't worth one American life. If they were so for us being there you can bet that we'd have all the names of the perpertrators blowing up American Soldiers with roadside bombs.Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money, and hundreds of soldiers' lives.
Bush is an internationalist now too, since he wants UN back in Iraq?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040314/w031416.html
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money,
That is ONLY CONJECTURE on your part it may take decades to know how the whole Iraq thing plays out........
BTW a few million people in Iraq disagree with you
Those Iraqis would tend to disagree with you. And that's a very racist statement.
For starters, you sound just like the head of one of the madrassas in Pakistan who said that "all of America is not worth the life of one Muslim. You (the journalist) may disagree but that's how I feel." This was on Nightline shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan.
Now tell me, who's right: You or the headmaster? Who's more racist? Who's more ignorant? Who's more of an ass?
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Easy you are.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What's so racist about it?Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fsck them, they aren't worth one American life. If they were so for us being there you can bet that we'd have all the names of the perpertrators blowing up American Soldiers with roadside bombs.Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money, and hundreds of soldiers' lives.
Bush is an internationalist now too, since he wants UN back in Iraq?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040314/w031416.html
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money,
That is ONLY CONJECTURE on your part it may take decades to know how the whole Iraq thing plays out........
BTW a few million people in Iraq disagree with you
Those Iraqis would tend to disagree with you. And that's a very racist statement.
For starters, you sound just like the head of one of the madrassas in Pakistan who said that "all of America is not worth the life of one Muslim. You (the journalist) may disagree but that's how I feel." This was on Nightline shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan.
Now tell me, who's right: You or the headmaster? Who's more racist? Who's more ignorant? Who's more of an ass?
Your so-called "Internationalist quip" is only a quip if you believe being an internationalist is a bad thing. It isn't. It astounds me that so many Republicans will lecture about the "global economy", yet attack Kerry for being an "internationalist". If they would pull their heads out of their partisan hatred for even a moment, they would see the two go hand-in-hand.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This part is true.Originally posted by: Dari
This was on Meet the Press this morning.
This part is empty partisan BS. Since you claim to be a Democrat, I will assume you meant, "Bush did put his business buddies' interests before that of America and the American people ... and will continue to do so if re-elected."So much for standing up for America. I guess should any crisis arise, Kerry would put the international community's interests before that of the United States.
Dari, you forgot to mention how Dean also said Bush was trying to divert attention by yapping about who supported what and when, that Kerry would be much better at fighting terrorism than Bush, and that the Bush administration lied to get us into Iraq.
On the bright side, it was nice to see Condi Rice finally make a truthful statement. She said, and I quote, "The President is the President." It's not much, but a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Of course she immediately became evasive again when Russert asked her about testifying under oath to the 9/11 Commission. One has to wonder why Bush and his minions are so reluctant to be truthful about what they knew and did before 9/11.
Howard Dean also said that Kerry would've acted in the same manner as Bush senior during the first Gulf War...a war Kerry voted against. Dean and Kerry may be habitual liars but they usually regurgitate the truth every now and then. The internationalist quip is the only thing that Kerry has been consistant about within the last thirty years. In the early 1970s he said that the United States shouldn't go to war unless it was under the aegis of the United Nations. He still believes this today.
Oh, that and the fact that he likes to marry rich women.
BTW, I'd recommend that you leave my party affiliation out of this. As you've seen, it's out of synch with my foreign and economic policies.
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Your so-called "Internationalist quip" is only a quip if you believe being an internationalist is a bad thing. It isn't. It astounds me that so many Republicans will lecture about the "global economy", yet attack Kerry for being an "internationalist". If they would pull their heads out of their partisan hatred for even a moment, they would see the two go hand-in-hand.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
This part is true.Originally posted by: Dari
This was on Meet the Press this morning.
This part is empty partisan BS. Since you claim to be a Democrat, I will assume you meant, "Bush did put his business buddies' interests before that of America and the American people ... and will continue to do so if re-elected."So much for standing up for America. I guess should any crisis arise, Kerry would put the international community's interests before that of the United States.
Dari, you forgot to mention how Dean also said Bush was trying to divert attention by yapping about who supported what and when, that Kerry would be much better at fighting terrorism than Bush, and that the Bush administration lied to get us into Iraq.
On the bright side, it was nice to see Condi Rice finally make a truthful statement. She said, and I quote, "The President is the President." It's not much, but a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. Of course she immediately became evasive again when Russert asked her about testifying under oath to the 9/11 Commission. One has to wonder why Bush and his minions are so reluctant to be truthful about what they knew and did before 9/11.
Howard Dean also said that Kerry would've acted in the same manner as Bush senior during the first Gulf War...a war Kerry voted against. Dean and Kerry may be habitual liars but they usually regurgitate the truth every now and then. The internationalist quip is the only thing that Kerry has been consistant about within the last thirty years. In the early 1970s he said that the United States shouldn't go to war unless it was under the aegis of the United Nations. He still believes this today.
Oh, that and the fact that he likes to marry rich women.
BTW, I'd recommend that you leave my party affiliation out of this. As you've seen, it's out of synch with my foreign and economic policies.
The United States cannot afford the arrogance of dismissing the rest of the world. It will be our undoing. Although we're top dog for the moment, it will not last. We are a minority on the global scene. If the the rest of the world grows tired of our bullying -- and it will -- we're toast. Our only hope over the long term is to actively foster collaborative relationships with as many countries as we can. Previous administrations understood this. Cowboy Bush does not. This alone makes him the single most dangerous person to the safety of the United States.
(Re. your alleged party affiliation, I have yet to see one iota of evidence you are anything other than a died-in-the-wool supporter of the Republican party line. If you are truly registered as a Democrat, it's only because you can't figure out how to change it. IMO, of course.)
So I'm worse than a terrorist because I don't believe that liberating the Iraqi's is/was worth any American lives? Nice spin, you should join the Dub's Re-Election Campaign, you would fit right in!Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Easy you are.Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What's so racist about it?Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fsck them, they aren't worth one American life. If they were so for us being there you can bet that we'd have all the names of the perpertrators blowing up American Soldiers with roadside bombs.Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money, and hundreds of soldiers' lives.
Bush is an internationalist now too, since he wants UN back in Iraq?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040314/w031416.html
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money,
That is ONLY CONJECTURE on your part it may take decades to know how the whole Iraq thing plays out........
BTW a few million people in Iraq disagree with you
Those Iraqis would tend to disagree with you. And that's a very racist statement.
For starters, you sound just like the head of one of the madrassas in Pakistan who said that "all of America is not worth the life of one Muslim. You (the journalist) may disagree but that's how I feel." This was on Nightline shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan.
Now tell me, who's right: You or the headmaster? Who's more racist? Who's more ignorant? Who's more of an ass?
Since that answer made no grammatical sense, I'd say the answer is you. I was originally going to put you two in the same category but, apparently, you've beaten the headmaster in the race to the bottom.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So I'm worse than a terrorist because I don't believe that liberating the Iraqi's is/was worth any American lives? Nice spin, you should join the Dub's Re-Election Campaign, you would fit right in!Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Easy you are.Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What's so racist about it?Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fsck them, they aren't worth one American life. If they were so for us being there you can bet that we'd have all the names of the perpertrators blowing up American Soldiers with roadside bombs.Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money, and hundreds of soldiers' lives.
Bush is an internationalist now too, since he wants UN back in Iraq?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040314/w031416.html
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money,
That is ONLY CONJECTURE on your part it may take decades to know how the whole Iraq thing plays out........
BTW a few million people in Iraq disagree with you
Those Iraqis would tend to disagree with you. And that's a very racist statement.
For starters, you sound just like the head of one of the madrassas in Pakistan who said that "all of America is not worth the life of one Muslim. You (the journalist) may disagree but that's how I feel." This was on Nightline shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan.
Now tell me, who's right: You or the headmaster? Who's more racist? Who's more ignorant? Who's more of an ass?
Since that answer made no grammatical sense, I'd say the answer is you. I was originally going to put you two in the same category but, apparently, you've beaten the headmaster in the race to the bottom.
Excuse me, an Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist Sympathizer.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So I'm worse than a terrorist because I don't believe that liberating the Iraqi's is/was worth any American lives? Nice spin, you should join the Dub's Re-Election Campaign, you would fit right in!Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Easy you are.Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What's so racist about it?Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fsck them, they aren't worth one American life. If they were so for us being there you can bet that we'd have all the names of the perpertrators blowing up American Soldiers with roadside bombs.Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money, and hundreds of soldiers' lives.
Bush is an internationalist now too, since he wants UN back in Iraq?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040314/w031416.html
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money,
That is ONLY CONJECTURE on your part it may take decades to know how the whole Iraq thing plays out........
BTW a few million people in Iraq disagree with you
Those Iraqis would tend to disagree with you. And that's a very racist statement.
For starters, you sound just like the head of one of the madrassas in Pakistan who said that "all of America is not worth the life of one Muslim. You (the journalist) may disagree but that's how I feel." This was on Nightline shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan.
Now tell me, who's right: You or the headmaster? Who's more racist? Who's more ignorant? Who's more of an ass?
Since that answer made no grammatical sense, I'd say the answer is you. I was originally going to put you two in the same category but, apparently, you've beaten the headmaster in the race to the bottom.
There you go again with your ignorant and racist statements. I said the man was the headmaster of a madrassa, not a terrorist. You've got major issues.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Excuse me, an Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist Sympathizer.Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So I'm worse than a terrorist because I don't believe that liberating the Iraqi's is/was worth any American lives? Nice spin, you should join the Dub's Re-Election Campaign, you would fit right in!Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Easy you are.Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
What's so racist about it?Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Fsck them, they aren't worth one American life. If they were so for us being there you can bet that we'd have all the names of the perpertrators blowing up American Soldiers with roadside bombs.Originally posted by: Romans828
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: Darling
Originally posted by: aswedc
Funny, I'd say the War in Iraq (especially rushing to start it) was putting the Iraqis interests ahead of our own. "Liberation" anyone?
How so?
The liberation of Iraq got rid of a nasty tyrant who was a virile anti-American.
The liberation of Iraq completes the encirclement of Iran.
The liberation of Iraq gets us a powerful partner and leverage in OPEC and the greater debate over containing Saudi Arabia.
The liberation of Iraq puts more pressure on Israel, Palestine and Syria to make peace.
The liberation of Iraq gives us a better strategic foothold in the Middle East to protect our vital interests.
The liberation of Iraq gives us an opportunity to start the democratization (and eventual modernization of the Arab world.
American interests are all over this. If it was up to the internationalist Kerry, he would have heeded France and Germany's call to pull back.
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money, and hundreds of soldiers' lives.
Bush is an internationalist now too, since he wants UN back in Iraq?
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/040314/w031416.html
The liberation of Iraq is a waste of billions upon billions of taxpayer money,
That is ONLY CONJECTURE on your part it may take decades to know how the whole Iraq thing plays out........
BTW a few million people in Iraq disagree with you
Those Iraqis would tend to disagree with you. And that's a very racist statement.
For starters, you sound just like the head of one of the madrassas in Pakistan who said that "all of America is not worth the life of one Muslim. You (the journalist) may disagree but that's how I feel." This was on Nightline shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan.
Now tell me, who's right: You or the headmaster? Who's more racist? Who's more ignorant? Who's more of an ass?
Since that answer made no grammatical sense, I'd say the answer is you. I was originally going to put you two in the same category but, apparently, you've beaten the headmaster in the race to the bottom.
There you go again with your ignorant and racist statements. I said the man was the headmaster of a madrassa, not a terrorist. You've got major issues.![]()
