Womd

[Demobilized]

The "terrorist groups", fundamentalist, or whatever the hell you want to call the people attacking our troops do because they know it works! Look at us! 350 of our men have died. A great loss and will be mourned, but insignificant when you look at the 58,000 men killed in the vietnam war. 58,000! It took 58,000 men for us to pull out. Now with only 350 men killed we turn tail and run. This will only encourage this type of action. If the people in the middle east know they can run us out by kill a relativley small amount of our men then they will just pick them off, one by one. Look at lebanon. They blew up our barracks, and we turned never looked back. They know they can get us, and by US i mean the United States public, to lose our backbone for our troops fighting. Once the government looses that support we will be forced to leave. 350 deaths in 6 MONTHS. Didn't something like 4,000 die in two days on a Japaness island? Stick behind your men and women fighting. War is a sometimes neccesary evil, and if anyone disagrees good luck in life.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by paintballguy429
Yeah, the 8 year old kids that Israel is slaughtering really learned their lesson. You're about just as brainwashed as the terrorists with your pro-American pro-Israeli propaganda.

Well then, the adults whose responsibility to watch after those children failed twice. Once for themselves and once for the kids.

And please, cut the brainwashed crap. It drives me nuts when someone stick firmly to one well established train of thought (the anti American anti Israeli thought in this case) but claims I'm brainwashed for believing in a different established train of though (in my case the pro-American sort of pro Israeli like).

Iraq invaded Kuwait more than 10 years ago. He was defeated. It is 2003. That proves nothing. Again, you have yet to show me any proof that he knowingly harbored and trained terrorists. A threat to the entire world? Not at all.

To everyone that isn't a dedicated anti war zealot it has been proven. To those people it cannot be proven. Well, maybe there were some polar bears somewhere that Saddam had no intention of harming, but basically everyone else was fair game.

You don't seem to get how important it is to keep the kinds of weapons he had out of the hands of the kinds of people he associated with.


As for Miscue, you know that your 9/11 post was just pathetic, so now your trying to play little games with everyone? You know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but you do know whenever you mention it and wave the flag you can get all yur little brainwashed patriot warhawks to come to your aid.

Again. The point isn't that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. The point is that 9/11 is the kind of thing that happens when we're complacent and unprepared.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by paintballguy429
No, I don't believe that the US should be policing the world. I just find it hypocritical for you to use "international law" to condemn and invade Iraq when in reality, the US is a very large violator of UN laws. It's great that we expect everyone else to abide by what the UN says, but the US could care less when it applies to us.

There's a faily large differnce between the policing the world and stopping a psycho from attacking, or equipping someone else to.

Ahhhhh....Zarqawi?

You're still using that? See, the deal with Zarqawi was that the Bush/Powell needed a link between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda, found him and ran with it.

You're ANSWER buddies tell you that?

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
I saw you interpreted my words wrongly, yet I get threatened with banishment. Shouldn't the person who posted the words or the picture know what they meant it as, not some person with a preformed bias (on both parties) trying to say what they think the intent was?

You seem to be completely unable to get that we all understood you and what you were saying. BUT that it also offended us and was inappropriate.

CB, we understood you. You even score points for techincally be correct that other people died that die, and I said as much in the thread. However, you were inappropriate and unrelenting. That was the problem.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Collegeboy
The point I was making about the Taliban was that if you asked a person who attacked us on 911, you might here Osama or the Taliban, you ask what organization did, and you might hear Al Queda or the Taliban. The Taliban never attacked us like many people falsely believe. All they did was allegedly giving Osama shelter. While that is bad in itself, they did not attack us like so many think.

Alledgedly?

He helped keep the Taliban in power, and in return they offered him shelter. It was a pretty big deal when it happened way back when as well. The Taliban clearly harbored Bin Laden and protected him. There is no question about that.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by paintballguy429
That's old news man, thought you'd be able to come up with something better.

And, A) he was the subject of two of the four links I posted. The other two dealt with others.

B) he was in Baghdad on more then one occasion and used Baghdad as an operations base to make purchases and acquire equipment with the aid of the Baathist party.

But yes, his terroist camp with in North Eastern Iraq. Which, Saddam control or no, it is now part of the (soon to be) democratic country of Iraq.

[paintballguy429]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt

Originally posted by paintballguy429
Yeah, the 8 year old kids that Israel is slaughtering really learned their lesson. You're about just as brainwashed as the terrorists with your pro-American pro-Israeli propaganda.

Well then, the adults whose responsibility to watch after those children failed twice. Once for themselves and once for the kids.

And please, cut the brainwashed crap. It drives me nuts when someone stick firmly to one well established train of thought (the anti American anti Israeli thought in this case) but claims I'm brainwashed for believing in a different established train of though (in my case the pro-American sort of pro Israeli like).

Iraq invaded Kuwait more than 10 years ago. He was defeated. It is 2003. That proves nothing. Again, you have yet to show me any proof that he knowingly harbored and trained terrorists. A threat to the entire world? Not at all.

To everyone that isn't a dedicated anti war zealot it has been proven. To those people it cannot be proven. Well, maybe there were some polar bears somewhere that Saddam had no intention of harming, but basically everyone else was fair game.

You don't seem to get how important it is to keep the kinds of weapons he had out of the hands of the kinds of people he associated with.


As for Miscue, you know that your 9/11 post was just pathetic, so now your trying to play little games with everyone? You know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but you do know whenever you mention it and wave the flag you can get all yur little brainwashed patriot warhawks to come to your aid.

Again. The point isn't that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. The point is that 9/11 is the kind of thing that happens when we're complacent and unprepared.

OMFG! So its the fault of the parents of the kids who are being murdered by Israel, not the Israeli soldiers? Never heard of that argument Go back to the drawing board dude, you've got nothing. You can try as hard as possible to justify the slaughter of the innocent, but it won't work.

Well, if its so obvious, then why don't you take a few minutes and prove it? You can shoot your rhetoric around as much as you want but it doesn't mean anything without proof.

[paintballguy429]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt

Originally posted by paintballguy429
No, I don't believe that the US should be policing the world. I just find it hypocritical for you to use "international law" to condemn and invade Iraq when in reality, the US is a very large violator of UN laws. It's great that we expect everyone else to abide by what the UN says, but the US could care less when it applies to us.

There's a faily large differnce between the policing the world and stopping a psycho from attacking, or equipping someone else to.

Ahhhhh....Zarqawi?

You're still using that? See, the deal with Zarqawi was that the Bush/Powell needed a link between Sadaam and Al-Qaeda, found him and ran with it.

You're ANSWER buddies tell you that?

Okay, then you have to prove that he was a threat instead of running your mouth all the time.

LOL. No, that is a fact. It is just true that Zarqawi lived in Northern Iraq, which has been out of Hussein's control since the Gulf War.

[Miscue]

Originally posted by Albinonewt

Again. The point isn't that Saddam had anything to do with 9/11. The point is that 9/11 is the kind of thing that happens when we're complacent and unprepared.

Bingo.

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by paintballguy429
OMFG! So its the fault of the parents of the kids who are being murdered by Israel, not the Israeli soldiers? Never heard of that argument Go back to the drawing board dude, you've got nothing. You can try as hard as possible to justify the slaughter of the innocent, but it won't work.

GEEZ LOUISE, can you even understand what I'm saying to you?

The Israelis asked the Palestinians to hand over the terrorists, and they refused to do so. So then the Israelis moved in to get them. By harboring terrorists the people chose a side, and it was the wrong side. Do I think they should be dead? Of course not. But, do I think that they made a choice and had to deal with the consequences, yes.

And what choice do the terrorists give the Israeli children when they gun them down at malls and pizza joints? None. They seek out the weak, the ones that can't protect themselves and they kill them. The IDF doesn't target civilians, but unfortunatly the terrorists hide amound civillians and sometimes some of them get killed. ANd you know what? That's what the terrorists want. They want innocents to die and they don't care which innoncents die. Just so long as someone is on the TV getting killed.

Well, if its so obvious, then why don't you take a few minutes and prove it? You can shoot your rhetoric around as much as you want but it doesn't mean anything without proof.

I have proven it. You're blinded by rhetoric.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by paintballguy429
Okay, then you have to prove that he was a threat instead of running your mouth all the time.

LOL. No, that is a fact. It is just true that Zarqawi lived in Northern Iraq, which has been out of Hussein's control since the Gulf War.

It can't be proven to you. You're an anti-war zealot that doesn't listen to anything told to you unless it starts of by blaming America and has an ANSWER logo on it. But for normal people, the ones that can pay attention and listen, it has been proven. It has been proven that he was in Baghdad. That he met with Saddam officials there. And that he made arrangements for equipment and safe passage while there. You don't hae to pay attention to the facts, infact I'd be suprised if you did. I don't expect someone as close minded as you to have any idea what's going on in the world.

But tell you what. Next time we let someone free on humantarian grounds and he kills a few thousand Americans, will you then admit you were and your anti-war head in the sand types were wrong?

Of course you won't, you'll figure out how to blame the Republicans that have been fighting that scum while you were complaining about the fight.

[paintballguy429]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Albinonewt

Originally posted by paintballguy429
OMFG! So its the fault of the parents of the kids who are being murdered by Israel, not the Israeli soldiers? Never heard of that argument Go back to the drawing board dude, you've got nothing. You can try as hard as possible to justify the slaughter of the innocent, but it won't work.

GEEZ LOUISE, can you even understand what I'm saying to you?

The Israelis asked the Palestinians to hand over the terrorists, and they refused to do so. So then the Israelis moved in to get them. By harboring terrorists the people chose a side, and it was the wrong side. Do I think they should be dead? Of course not. But, do I think that they made a choice and had to deal with the consequences, yes.

And what choice do the terrorists give the Israeli children when they gun them down at malls and pizza joints? None. They seek out the weak, the ones that can't protect themselves and they kill them. The IDF doesn't target civilians, but unfortunatly the terrorists hide amound civillians and sometimes some of them get killed. ANd you know what? That's what the terrorists want. They want innocents to die and they don't care which innoncents die. Just so long as someone is on the TV getting killed.

Well, if its so obvious, then why don't you take a few minutes and prove it? You can shoot your rhetoric around as much as you want but it doesn't mean anything without proof.

I have proven it. You're blinded by rhetoric.

You have not proven anything. All you have done is throw around insults without facts. If you are so right then show everyone and stop whining.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by paintballguy429
You have not proven anything. All you have done is throw around insults without facts. If you are so right then show everyone and stop whining.

Paintballguy:

I have given you four links showing terrorists in Iraq prior to the period that they started pouring in from accross the border (it is safe to say that most, if not all, of those terrorists have no links to Saddam). However, you choose to ignore it. Why? Because you refuse to accept the opposite of what you want to believe. There are many people here and all of them have their own opinions and beliefs and with the possible exception of college boy they are all willing to see what truth lies in the other side of the arguement. You aren't. It shouldn't suprise me after seeing the quote in your sig about the anti-globalization thugs that travel around the globe rioting in front of world leader confrences. But, that kind of blind unwillingness to look at what other people are saying and to analyze always kind of suprises me. If you're not willing to leave your rhetoric and stubborn unwilingness to listen at the door then I suggest you stop speaking.

[Collegeboy]

So you are saying that it is ok to use the deaths of 2,000 people on 9/11, to justify the invasion of another country. I mean if it is true that you are doing it to prevent future 9/11's (doubtful), why Iraq? Why not N. Korea (the only country proven to pose a threat to us (yet we gave into their demands)), why not China, why not Saudi Arabia (I mean the majority of the 9/11 people were Saudis), why not Israel (For if they don't stop they will cause an end to this world in the coming centuries, if that long)? So why Iraq, the country that posed no threat to us, had no delivery system, no WOMD, nothing that could be considered to even pose a threat to the US. Yet you are using the deaths of the people on 9/11 to justify yours and others blood lust. Thank you for trivializing and ruining the deaths of over 2,000 innocent citizens.

The bad thing is, nothing will come of your post, but let me post it, and you hold my views, and see what would happen.

If you really are worried about stopping another 9/11, push for alternative fuel sources, push for a stronger US/Russia alliance (for if Russia starts to sell oil in Euros instead of dollars, watch our dollar hit rock bottom, push for the ending of the US support of Israel, and a peace between the two, push for a separation of the treaty that Russia and China has for each other (if one is attacked by another country the other will come to their aid). All are these are helpful in preventing another 9/11. Attacking a foreign country that poses no threat to you only increases the chances for another 9/11 to take place.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt
I have given you four links showing terrorists in Iraq prior to the period that they started pouring in from accross the border (it is safe to say that most, if not all, of those terrorists have no links to Saddam). However, you choose to ignore it. Why? Because you refuse to accept the opposite of what you want to believe.

Lets discuss this rationally. You guys always say the same thing which is "you are putting your head in the sand". Can it not be true that there is a middle ground here and both sides are sticking their heads in the sand? His points are that your four links are a bunch of BS propaganda to gather support for the war and I have to say that he is right. Your own link talks about how Rice did not want to "push the 9/11 link too far". Just accept the fact that the terrorist link to Saddam is bogus. There is no doubt that he was a bad man and evil man. There is no doubt that the Iraqi people are BETTER without him. Where we disagree is if he was a threat to the citizens of the U.S. That war was not about the U.S. "War on Terror".

That being said it does NOT mean that the war in Iraq was wrong. It depends on your beliefs. If you believe that Saddam had to be ousted for middle east stability and peace which would serve the long range interests of the U.S. then it was a bold move that may pay off big time. I don't necessarily agree but it may happen. Just don't give me the line of Saddam representing an imminent threat to the American people.....