What is "false" about Saddam's nuclear ambitions? He BUILT a nuclear reactor. Do you suppose that he no longer wanted one just because the Israelis destroyed it? And he USED chemical weapons on the Iranis and on his own people. This is verified by the UN and the results are on video.
If you want me to believe that Bush signed some kind of "binding" agreement that "prohibits" us from leaving Iraq, show me some proof. On Mar 18, 1:21 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote: > Some intel that Bush used was available when Clinton was President, Clinton > knew better than to actually act on it... The people that originated some of > it actually informed Washington that it was either false or incorrect; > especially that which dealt with nukes. chem weaponry, al Queada > connections..(all proven to be non-existent).. please read the Senate > report. > > And that is correct sir, Bush did indeed sign a timetable that is legally > binding.... The US may NOT legally pull out ahead or behind time without the > approval of the Iraqis. You are correct it is indeed hard to believe.... as > are oh so many idiocies that are left over from GW. Just look it up. You > obviously have a hard time with doing the homework that forms your resulting > baseless opinions. > > On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 10:42 AM, Zebnick <zebn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > What the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying that we can't pull > > our troops out of Iraq unless Iraq says we can? If you believe that > > you're a fuckin retard. > > > "Secret intel?" LOL! Got your tin foil hat on today, I see. Was this > > intel held back from Clinton when he was President? > > > On Mar 17, 4:54 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Zeb, > > > > He would be breaking the agreement made and signed into law by the Bush > > > administration if he 'pulled out immediately'. The agreement says that > > only > > > a formal request from the democratic government of Iraq can change the > > > agreement. Please try to stay up on the facts you attempt to slide in. > > > > As to Vietnam... no it is not a fair comparison as there was never a > > signed > > > treaty that documented an exit under any President but Gerald Ford. > > > > As to the party split on entering the war in Iraq... they were not given > > the > > > "secret" intel and source info until 2005-2006. At that time even the > > > Republicans denounced GW in the Republican controlled Senate Report. In > > > other words they ALL swallowed the same kool-aid that was personally > > served > > > by GW and none of them have the balls to prosecute him. > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Zebnick <zebn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > What the hell are you talking about Mark? Obama could pull all troops > > > > out of Iraq immediately, escalate the war or do nothing at all. How is > > > > what goes on there now Bush's responsibility. By that logic, the > > > > entire Viet Nam war is on JFK's head. And BTW, although Republicans > > > > controlled congress when we went into Iraq, almost ALL of the Dems > > > > voted for the action as well. Each of their votes counts just as much > > > > as each of the Republican votes. > > > > > As to Afghanistan, it is a primitive area of the world without a > > > > national government, as we commonly define one. We are trying to train > > > > pigs to dance the ballet. > > > > > On Mar 17, 4:26 pm, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Now, Now Zeb. You are of course welcome to address any political > > issue > > > > you > > > > > wish. You are welcome to address someones political views as well. > > > > > > You must admit though that the agreement to shut down (and in what > > > > manner) > > > > > the war in Iraq was signed under Bush. He DOES therefore bear the > > burden > > > > in > > > > > or out of office as the war was (once again) discretionary and in the > > > > eyes > > > > > of the Republican controlled congress and their voluminous report, > > > > > unnecessary, and poorly executed with all purported reasons for > > waging it > > > > > based on faulty and or fabricated intel. > > > > > > Now before you attack me on this you must know that I am merely > > > > > quoting empirical reports (Us Senate intelligence report: Sept 2006) > > > > > > As to Afghanistan... No western power has ever won there.. why even > > try. > > > > > Just napalm the poppy farms and cut off their income... but to > > paraphrase > > > > GW > > > > > "what about the poor farmers" ?? It seems "0" is right in line with > > these > > > > > thoughts as he persecutes the war anywhere the Poppies aren't. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Zebnick <zebn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I need to address whatever the fuck I feel like addressing. And if > > I > > > > > > feel like highlighting VT's preposterous obsession with blaming > > > > > > everything on Bush, which he did in this thread, or your goofy, > > self- > > > > > > serving "interpretations" of what other people mean, I'll do it, > > > > > > whether you decide to bore the forum to death or not. > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 11:20 am, Hollywood <jims29...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > > > Ya' need to focus and try to deal with the subject at hand. I > > know > > > > the > > > > > > > AADD probably makes that tough, but just do your best. The > > subject is > > > > > > > Afghanistan and comparisons to Vietnam, not Sean's life or YOUR > > > > "goofy > > > > > > > interpretation" of it. > > > > > > > > Does is occur to you I don't give the slightest fuck what you > > think > > > > > > > boring? > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 10:04 am, Zebnick <zebn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm saying that VT's eternal attempts to blame everything in > > the > > > > world > > > > > > > > and his failed life on Bush are boring. And your goofy > > > > interpretations > > > > > > > > of what people mean to say are also boring. > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 9:12 am, Hollywood <jims29...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Zeb, > > > > > > > > > > What? We HAVEN'T been in Afghanistan for 9 nine years, longer > > > > than > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > fighting in WWI, WWII and Korea combined? > > > > > > > > > Are you saying that is not true or are you saying that the > > truth > > > > > > bores > > > > > > > > > you? > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 17, 8:05 am, Zebnick <zebn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You're a one trick pony. Get a new act. You're boring. > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 11:03 pm, VT Sean Lewis < > > thevirtualtr...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > We have been at war for 9 years in Afghanistan, if we > > lose it > > > > > > will be > > > > > > > > > > > because of the incompetence of Bush. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 16, 10:42 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=36041 > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Will Congress Lose Afghanistan Like It Lost Vietnam? * > > > > > > > > > > > > > *by Phillip Jennings * > > > > > > > > > > > > > 03/16/2010 > > > > > > > > > > > > > As you prepare for your imminent deployment to > > Afghanistan, > > > > I > > > > > > guess it’s > > > > > > > > > > > > inevitable that I’m thinking of that time forty five > > years > > > > ago > > > > > > that I > > > > > > > > > > > > prepared for my deployment to Vietnam as a young > > lieutenant > > > > of > > > > > > Marines. > > > > > > > > > > > > We’ve talked about the similarities in our respective > > wars, > > > > but > > > > > > there’s a > > > > > > > > > > > > lot more I could say. The concurrent publication of my > > > > > > *Politically > > > > > > > > > > > > Incorrect Guide to the Vietnam > > > > > > > > > > > > War< > > >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596985674?ie=UTF8&tag=humaneventson.. > > > > .> > > > > > > > > > > > > * has sharpened our discussions and my ability to > > comment > > > > on > > > > > > your questions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > First, it is critically important for Americans to > > > > understand > > > > > > the true > > > > > > > > > > > > history of our involvement. Most important is the fact > > > > that > > > > > > the U.S. > > > > > > > > > > > > military fought brilliantly and defeated the Communist > > > > > > aggressors in > > > > > > > > > > > > Vietnam. Yes, that’s right. We won the war. And then > > we > > > > saw > > > > > > the Congress > > > > > > > > > > > > of the United States throw away that victory by > > abrogating > > > > our > > > > > > obligations > > > > > > > > > > > > to continue support of the South Vietnamese. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why is that so important? Simply because that fact > > > > illuminates > > > > > > the only way > > > > > > > > > > > > we can similarly lose in Afghanistan. You will not be > > > > defeated > > > > > > on the > > > > > > > > > > > > battlefield. Of that, there is no question. > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, as in Vietnam, the administration has all but > > > > eliminated > > > > > > the phrase > > > > > > > > > > > > “win the war” from its rhetoric about the conflict. As > > the > > > > > > administrations > > > > > > > > > > > > prior to President Nixon did in the Vietnam War, the > > Obama > > > > > > administration > > > > > > > > > > > > will continue to confuse and dissemble, not trusting > > the > > > > > > American people’s > > > > > > > > > > > > wisdom, will and judgment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Obama team is -- like the Johnson administration > > did > > > > so > > > > > > often -- > > > > > > > > > > > > debating the very definition of winning and even > > question > > > > that > > > > > > possibility. > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, although there are complicated and sometimes > > > > > > conflicting elements > > > > > > > > > > > > of the war in Afghanistan, the fact is that America > > (and > > > > the > > > > > > West) cannot > > > > > > > > > > > > abandon that part of the world to hundreds of thousands > > if > > > > not > > > > > > millions of > > > > > > > > > > > > West-hating combatants who will have access to > > increasingly > > > > > > destructive > > > > > > > > > > > > weapons, recruits and, yes, atomic weapons. Some of the > > > > latter > > > > > > are already > > > > > > > > > > > > in place in Pakistan, a nation whose future is very > > much at > > > > > > risk. > > > > > > > > > > > > > We are not in a war against Islam. But we are at war > > with > > > > an > > > > > > Islam-derived > > > > > > > > > > > > ideology and – if we’re truthful about it -- not just > > the > > > > > > terrorists but the > > > > > > > > > > > > nations that finance, arm and comprehensively support > > them. > > > > And > > > > > > -- facts are > > > > > > > > > > > > what they are -- those nations and terrorist groups are > > > > almost > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
