Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
a few missles into an abandoned training camp is attempting to take him out? what do you call the refusal to take him when he was offered to us?
|
You're right. Clinton should have gotten him, no matter what the idiots in congress said. And we as a nation should have been howling in rage over the fact that Clinton wasn't getting him. Unfortunately we were too busy howling in vicarious lust over the fact that Clinton got it on with a bimbo intern.
Quote:
|
he may not be in our custody, but he is not free as a bird. I don't recall any of his little videos hitting al-jazeera lately hidden with messages for his minions to attack. Do you?
|
Oh, well great then. Let's treat all criminals like that. As long as we don't think they're in a position to commit crimes, don't bother capturing them. Ken Lay isn't head of Enron anymore so he can't pull that crap any more. Let's not punish him either.
Oh, and by the way, Pajhwok Afghan News is reporting they just received a bin Laden video. If that turns out to be true, it kinda blows your whole theory outa the water
Quote:
|
And its not the fact that saddam and his sons were involved in 9/11 per say. it is all related in the fact that there is an organization out there who wants to kill all the infidels and continue to bomb our buildings. where me, my family, my friends work, shop, eat, and live.
|
That organization is Al Qaeda. Not Iraq. See, they're two different things. No matter how many times Bush says their names in the same sentence, that still won't connect them. Go after Al Qaeda. Not Iraq.
Quote:
|
taking saddam out removes any threat that he may have potentially posed.
|
Gee, killing you or Halx or the guy down the street eliminates any potential threat you three might cause too. Of course, the fact that there is NO credible evidence that there's any such threat from any of you should cause your executioners to reconsider, shouldn't it?
Quote:
|
I know those are alot of auxillary verbs, but if in the end it turns out he was not that close to arming terrorists with WMDs, its not a lost cause since the shit-head is out of power. To me it is a win-win.
|
Ahh I get it. We as the greatest democracy on earth, the country that believes in the freedom of choice, should be allowed to take out anyone we don't like, even if he doesn't pose a threat to us.
There's a word for that. It's called imperialism. Some would also call it barbarian.
Quote:
|
so because of past actions, current and future actions that could correct the past should not be undertaken?? And to the more than 2,000 soldiers who have sacrificed their lives and the thousand others than have sacrificed parts of themselves, I am thankful, as many americans are. It was their choice to serve and you should respect that instead of using their sacrifice to justify your opposition.
|
Bull SHIT. That's a GREAT argument for you because it's one that, if we accept the premise, you can never lose. You go on the premise that pointing out someone died needlessly disrespects the person that died. That's not only wrong, it's stupid. If that's the case, Columbine should never have been reported, because in order to tell anyone about it you have to talk about needless deaths.
Saying that we've killed 2,000 soldiers is not disrespectful of those soldiers. It is not unsupportive of the troops to want to bring them home to their families where they are safe.
If you want to talk about not supporting the soldiers, how about not supplying them with the necessary equipment (erm. . .ARMOR?) or numbers to get the job done? How about forcing national guard soldiers, who signed up to defend the country and help out in natural disasters - not to fight optional foriegn wars, to stay in Iraq for far longer than their regular army counterpoints? How about bringing national guard units home and then sending them back out 3 months later?
If you want to accuse someone of not supporting our troops, look to the commander in chief.