The rest of the story

Cerise said:
Even funnier that you can't name one plan the Democrat party has put forth on how to secure our country from terrorism from without and within. :shrug:
Click to expand...

That's an attempt to change the subject and has nothing to do with getting out of Iraq.
 
Gonz said:
That would be the over 90% of the American liberal, used by the demoncrat party spinners to affect poular opinion.
Click to expand...

Got a link supporting that statement? Are you the 90% of the troops that believe that are all liberals?
 
So no?

If you are saying 90% of the troops are liberal you're going to have to do better than that.
 
I was talking about you're quote but maybe the typos threw me off.

What did you mean with this sentence?

That would be the over 90% of the American liberal, used by the demoncrat party spinners to affect poular opinion.
Click to expand...
 
spike said:
how many of them "think war is retaliation for Saddam’s role in 9/11"
Click to expand...

That would be the over 90% of the American liberal, used by the demoncrat party spinners to affect poular opinion.

I wonder, were there opinion polls taken in the 1940s? Or was that saved for Korea & later?
Click to expand...
Over 90% of liberals think that 9/11 & saddam are connected. That, plus the demoncrat party spinners (Dr Dean, et al) using those libs & their misinformation as a tactic to spin the truth into something that is no longer visible.

Republicans do not see a connection that was never made.

Iraq & terrorism are linked.
9/11 & saddam aren't.
 
Gonz said:
Over 90% of liberals think that 9/11 & saddam are connected.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, support that statement. Pretty far fetched.

We do know that 90% of the troops think Iraq is retaliation for 9/11. Is this 90% all liberals? Why would they think that?

I got an idea, how about going after the people involved in 9/11.

Looks like it was mostly Saudis
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/01/911/plotters.shtml

Or Pakistan, #1 supporter of Taliban.

Oh Taliban not always so bad.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm

and of course

The deal on the pipeline was signed on December 27, 2002 by the leaders of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Signing the agreement was made possible by the invasion of Afghanistan by United States military forces a year prior, which overthrew the Taliban government controlling most of Afghanistan.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
 
spike said:
Oh ok, support that statement. Pretty far fetched.
Click to expand...

I already did.

spike said:
I got an idea, how about going after the people involved in 9/11.
Click to expand...
Because they're dead. We're now intent on stopping other attacks by placing ourselves in a country that was violating a voluntary surrender & removing their terrorist supporting leader. While we're there and ion other nearby countries, it gives us the upper hand in stopping another fascist. Do catch up.
 
spike said:
That's an attempt to change the subject and has nothing to do with getting out of Iraq.
Click to expand...

Will you deny that the US is safer with democracy in Iraq?

One of the questions from Pollingreport.com:

"How would you say things are going for the U.S. in its efforts to bring stability and order to Iraq? Would you say things are going very well, somewhat well, somewhat badly, or very badly?"

Since you don't like the Bush administration's plan to stay the course in Iraq until they can stand on their own, what is the Democrat's plan to bring stability and order to that country so we can exit?
 
Will you deny that the US is safer with democracy in Iraq?
Click to expand...



that seems to have been a double edged sword. Saddam hated us so if he had the WMDs or ties to terrorism we would be worse off with him in power. But it is also giving the terrorists more reason to hate us, and they have been recruiting more and more soldiers and they could try to attack us again
 
freako104 said:
But it is also giving the terrorists more reason to hate us, and they have been recruiting more and more soldiers and they could try to attack us again
Click to expand...

Where? Our being in Iraq, or Kuwait or Saudia Arabia for that matter has no bearing on their like, or dislike, of us. They despise our lifestyle & the fact that we're not Muslim. Everything else is pudding.
 
Are you sure about that? If that was the case they would not be swarming into Iraq to kill off our military as we speak. We are in the ME by being in Afghan and Iraq. Both of those are pissing them off more than anything.
 
Gonz said:
I already did.
Click to expand...

So you can't back up your claims at all. Understood. Can't come up with a single reference to this 90% number?

Because they're dead. We're now intent on stopping other attacks by placing ourselves in a country that was violating a voluntary surrender & removing their terrorist supporting leader. While we're there and ion other nearby countries, it gives us the upper hand in stopping another fascist. Do catch up.
Click to expand...

You have to be pretty damn gullible to believe that one. They're dead? Bin Laden still seems to be doing fine and there's some pretty direct connections to the people responsible for 9/11 we could be pursuing rather than invading a country not known for terrorism.
 
Cerise said:
Will you deny that the US is safer with democracy in Iraq?

Since you don't like the Bush administration's plan to stay the course in Iraq until they can stand on their own, what is the Democrat's plan to bring stability and order to that country so we can exit?
Click to expand...

How is the US safer since Iraq wasn't a threat? Stability in Iraq not going to happen but would be far more stable if the US left. 80% of them want the US out, staying is causing increased "insurgency" and instability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top