If you want to gety that involved then we need to talk "blue jeans" and "music" and travel rights.
Just how deep is your knowledge ?? On 2/23/09, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > 1) Using the definition used by the UNSC, Saddam did have WMD, > period... Do you know what they were? > > 2) Saddam's Iraq, as described by the Kay Report was in fact a failing > state... That combined with the Saddam induced corruption in the UN, > Saddam's refusal to follow UN Resolution (and the UNSC alowing it to > happen), the rise of stateless terrorism to deliver WMD, and the > willingness ofr the failing state of Iraq to introduce WMD in the > hands of stateless terrorists DID pose a threat to the US and the > entire world order... That you refuse to even address this point is > telling -- you insist on seeing Saddam in a traditional state to state > conflict, when this was NOT about that... > > 3) Bush went into Iraq to address the sytematic causes of groups like > AQ -- bad governance in the ME and their export of terrorism to > maintain internal order... > > 4) What you are not addressing is that the WOT is not just about OBL > or AQ, but the entire structure that allows for those types of groups > to exist... > > On Feb 23, 5:14 pm, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > No matter how many times these arguments are proven wrong > > you will never listen to the truth of the facts. > > > > Saddam was not a threat, had no WMD.s, was not harboring > > Al qaeda, and was not involved in the 9/11 attack. > > > > Bin Laden who Bush promised to get dead or alive on the burning > > ashes of american dead at ground zero, was the Terror Threat, > > is trying to get WMD's, is harboring Al qaeda cells and > > spreading terror, was involved in the 9/11 attack, and is STILL > > FREE TO CONTINUE ALL OF THE ABOVE! > > > > So how did we win? > > > > On Feb 23, 4:40 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 1) an AQ linked group was granted a limited haven in Iraq under Saddam > > > (NE Iraq) in part due to Saddam's lack of influence there.. > > > > > 2) AQ went to Iraq in force to "defeat" America.... By going to Iraq, > > > Bush force AQ to "defend" Iraq, and AQ tried to do that by seeking but > > > failing to chase the Americans out... Instead of victory, AQ saw a > > > strategic defeat because Sunni Moslems turned against AQ and supported > > > America because of AQ thuggish death cult was exposed by AQ's actions > > > to ordinary Sunni Iraqis... > > > > > 3) You just do not "get it", in war you seek to engage your enemy in a > > > place and time of your choosing. Bush choose Iraq and AQ rush in > > > onto this battlefield and was defeated... > > > > > 4) Your next point will be we should not have invaded Iraq because > > > they did not attack us... But here you ignore who the enemy in the > > > WOT is and was - the nexus between radical Islam (Sunni and Shia), > > > failed and failing states (as Iraq was), and WMD (stockpiles, > > > manufacturing, and knowledge)... Stateless terrorist ARE the ideal > > > delivery system for any failing state wishing to deny "offical" > > > responsibility in a chemical, biological, or dirty nuke attack... > > > Until you comprehend this, your POV of what Bush did lacks fundamental > > > understanding... > > > > > On Feb 23, 1:45 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > There was no AQ in Iraq prior to the US arrival. Your point has no > > > > value. The Bush family has more proveable links to AQ and its finances > > > > than Hussein ever did. > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 12:19 PM, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Except VT we did win in Iraq... AQ and Iran have suffered strategic > > > > > defeats... The refusal to grasp that concept is why your opinion in > > > > > this matter is not factual... > > > > > > > On Feb 22, 5:37 am, VT VirtualTruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> Just like Iraq this is another no win situation left > > > > >> for another person to clean up. Bush should have dealt with this mess > > > > >> but he could not, or would not admit HIS OWN MISTAKE! > > > > > > >> Bush had no business being President and it will become clearer > > > > >> with each month that goes by! > > > > > > >> On Feb 21, 2:16 pm, jgg1000a <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> > if he did he would enrage his Leftie base... If he doesn't, > > > > >> > another > > > > >> > example of Obama the-just-another-politician come to light... How > > > > >> > many will it take for the media to see Obama is just another > > > > >> > Emperor > > > > >> > without clothing??? > > > > > > >> >http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/02/guantanamo-bay-military-prison-m... > > > > > > >> > >>> According to a Pentagon review ordered by President Obama. > > > > >> > >>> So... great. I'm proud of our military. But am I proud of our > > > > >> > >>> President who first promised to close the place and then got > > > > >> > >>> the study showing the facts relevant to the question whether > > > > >> > >>> it should be closed? > > > > > > >> > Let's see if he can say now, as he has before, I screwed up. > > > > > > -- > > > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com-Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
