Interesting.

[Brett]

There were 39 combat related killings in Iraq in January. In the fair city of Detroit there were 35 murders in the month of January. That's just one American city, about as deadly as the entire war-torn country of Iraq .



When some claim that President Bush shouldn't have started this war, tell them the following :



FDR (DEMOCRAT) led us into World War II. Germany never attacked us; Japan did. From 1941-1945, 450,000 lives were lost ... an average of 112,500 per year.



Truman (DEMOCRAT) finished that war and started one in Korea . North Korea never attacked us. From 1950-1953, 55,000 lives were lost ... an average of 18,334 per year.



John F. Kennedy (DEMOCRAT) started the Vietnam conflict in 1962. Vietnam never attacked us.



Johnson (DEMOCRAT) turned Vietnam into a quagmire. From 1965-1975, 58,000 lives were lost ... an average of 5,800 per year.



Clinton (DEMOCRAT) went to war in Bosnia without UN or French consent. Bosnia never attacked us. He was offered Osama bin Laden's head on a platter three times by Sudan and did nothing. Osama has attacked us on multiple occasions.


This one is a fact that makes me mad as hell.

In the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled al-Qaida, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran, and, North Korea without firing a shot, and captured a terrorist who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. And the Democrats are complaining about how long the war is taking.

But Wait, There's more.



It took less time to take Iraq than it took Janet Reno (DEMOCRAT) to take the Branch Davidian compound. That was a 51-day operation .



We've been looking for evidence for chemical weapons in Iraq for less time than it took Hillary Clinton (DEMOCRAT) to find the Rose law firm billing records.





It took less time for the 3rd Infantry Division and the Marines to destroy the Medina Republican Guard than it took Ted Kennedy to call the police after his Oldsmobile sank at Chappaquid****.


It took less time to take Iraq than it took to count the votes in Florida !!!


Our Commander-In-Chief is doing a GREAT JOB! The Military morale is high!
The biased media hopes we are too ignorant to realize the facts.

[BKgen®]

interesting repost.

[Ran]

Nifty

[ironchef]

Well I can't speak for the other wars besides WW2, so here goes.

Through FDR's actions, the country had gotten out of the great depression, went on to become a powerful economy, and coincidentally sparked the baby boom, which produced a huge generation of smart, productive individuals that made this country flourish, thus experiencing one of the greatest times of economic prosperity.

As for the useless Iraq war. We're now over $10 trillion in debt, much of it to China, the value of the dollar is way to low, gas prices are way to high, there was no weapons of mass destruction found, and we lost several thousand lives to make that happen.

Difference? You tell me.

[MistaCee]

Well I can't speak for the other wars besides WW2, so here goes.

Through FDR's actions, the country had gotten out of the great depression, went on to become a powerful economy, and coincidentally sparked the baby boom, which produced a huge generation of smart, productive individuals that made this country flourish, thus experiencing one of the greatest times of economic prosperity.

As for the useless Iraq war. We're now over $10 trillion in debt, much of it to China, the value of the dollar is way to low, gas prices are way to high, there was no weapons of mass destruction found, and we lost several thousand lives to make that happen.

Difference? You tell me.

QFT

[99hatch]

Well I can't speak for the other wars besides WW2, so here goes.

Through FDR's actions, the country had gotten out of the great depression, went on to become a powerful economy, and coincidentally sparked the baby boom, which produced a huge generation of smart, productive individuals that made this country flourish, thus experiencing one of the greatest times of economic prosperity.

As for the useless Iraq war. We're now over $10 trillion in debt, much of it to China, the value of the dollar is way to low, gas prices are way to high, there was no weapons of mass destruction found, and we lost several thousand lives to make that happen.

Difference? You tell me.

I agree, not to mention. Iraq didnt attack us either. Bin Laden did, and he was not from Iraq.

[Stormhammer]

actually they apparently did find various bunkers that contained WMD's

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Make sure you know your facts about this war before you go stating facts. Don't always trust one media outlet ;)

[ironchef]

actually they apparently did find various bunkers that contained WMD's

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Make sure you know your facts about this war before you go stating facts. Don't always trust one media outlet ;)How about you read the facts before you go spouting off.

From your own article...

A) The weapons were there pre Gulf War, so if anything they should have been cleared out back then.

B) Since they were there pre Gulf War they're not new WMDs, therefore Saddam wasn't building anything new that could affect that U.S.

C) The range of this weapons is so small that it poses no danger to the U.S. at all. The only danger it poses to are the U.S. Troops stationed there, who really shouldn't even be there.

[Ran]

Democrat vs. Republican is such a stupid subject these days it's rediculous. It because of all this internal conflicting bullsh*t that our country is in such bad shape to begin with. America is the modern day Roman Empire and we're about to f*cking burn.

[ShooterMcGavin]

actually they apparently did find various bunkers that contained WMD's

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html

Make sure you know your facts about this war before you go stating facts. Don't always trust one media outlet ;)
here's a better tip, NEVER trust the media outlet known as FauxNews :goodjob:

[ShooterMcGavin]

retarded and unnecessary repost.
fixed!

[ironchef]

here's a better tip, NEVER trust the media outlet known as FauxNews :goodjob:Also a thought to consider.

[americanctm]

Good find Brett. Thanks for sharing.

[Brett]

Good find Brett. Thanks for sharing.

Welcome :D

[redrumracer]

here's a better tip, NEVER trust the media outlet known as FauxNews :goodjob:
So instead we should all listen to the Clinton News Network?

[redrumracer]

Well I can't speak for the other wars besides WW2, so here goes.

Through FDR's actions, the country had gotten out of the great depression, went on to become a powerful economy, and coincidentally sparked the baby boom, which produced a huge generation of smart, productive individuals that made this country flourish, thus experiencing one of the greatest times of economic prosperity.

As for the useless Iraq war. We're now over $10 trillion in debt, much of it to China, the value of the dollar is way to low, gas prices are way to high, there was no weapons of mass destruction found, and we lost several thousand lives to make that happen.

Difference? You tell me.

you can thank the baby boom generation due to WW2. also if you took all the cost of WW2 and inflated it for current market i wonder how much it would cost. and the useless Iraq, how about the fact that Hussein was responsible for a lot of deaths. WMD arent just chemical, he committed genocide aka got rid of a mass group of people. also they did find WMD's.

[ironchef]

you can thank the baby boom generation due to WW2. also if you took all the cost of WW2 and inflated it for current market i wonder how much it would cost. and the useless Iraq, how about the fact that Hussein was responsible for a lot of deaths. WMD arent just chemical, he committed genocide aka got rid of a mass group of people. also they did find WMD's.Is that even an attempt at an agrument?

A) I already said the baby boom was due to WW2, reading comprehension is awesome.

B) Obviously it would cost a **** ton, its a ****ing World War.

C) Hussein was responsible for deaths of his own people in Iraq, which he had been doing for a LONNNNNGGGG time, way before 9/11.

D) Have they found any WMDs that posed any kind of danger to the U.S.? Nope.

I don't know why I even bothered to respond, but oh well.

[redrumracer]

Is that even an attempt at an agrument?

A) I already said the baby boom was due to WW2, reading comprehension is awesome.
you made it appear as though it was a glorious thing he did to cause the baby boom, when actually it was him going to a war with a country that didnt attack us


B) Obviously it would cost a **** ton, its a ****ing World War.
no argument there


C) Hussein was responsible for deaths of his own people in Iraq, which he had been doing for a LONNNNNGGGG time, way before 9/11.
yes he was and should have been taken out a LONNNNNGGGG before.


D) Have they found any WMDs that posed any kind of danger to the U.S.? Nope.

I don't know why I even bothered to respond, but oh well.
how hard do you think it would have been for them to come here and plant them? not that hard.

[ironchef]

you made it appear as though it was a glorious thing he did to cause the baby boom, when actually it was him going to a war with a country that didnt attack us

no argument there

yes he was and should have been taken out a LONNNNNGGGG before.

how hard do you think it would have been for them to come here and plant them? not that hard.
I didn't make it appear glorious at all, all I said it happened as a result of his actions.

It wasn't just the U.S. who fought Germany, the U.S. was part of the allied forces that were able to stop the Nazis. Because if the Nazi's took over Europe, who do you think their next target would've been? Gee don't take too long to think about that one.

Of course he should've been taken out. But he wasn't, however that didn't mean he had to be the focus of this war on "terror".

How do you know they haven't been planted already?

[ShooterMcGavin]

So instead we should all listen to the Clinton News Network?
didn't say that, although i will admit they've aired more truth than fauxnews...

[redrumracer]

I didn't make it appear glorious at all, all I said it happened as a result of his actions.

It wasn't just the U.S. who fought Germany, the U.S. was part of the allied forces that were able to stop the Nazis. Because if the Nazi's took over Europe, who do you think their next target would've been? Gee don't take too long to think about that one.

Of course he should've been taken out. But he wasn't, however that didn't mean he had to be the focus of this war on "terror".

How do you know they haven't been planted already?
except hitler was attacking those other countries that were involved in the war, and he wasnt/isnt the focus of war on terror, and i dont know if they have been planted or not.

[stillaneon]

Is that even an attempt at an agrument?

C) Hussein was responsible for deaths of his own people in Iraq, which he had been doing for a LONNNNNGGGG time, way before 9/11.

D) Have they found any WMDs that posed any kind of danger to the U.S.? Nope.

I don't know why I even bothered to respond, but oh well.


So what you're saying is because he had been doing it for a long time, we needed to let him continue? NO, He was commiting mass murder and it wasnt just that. He did not comply with UN regulations numerous times.

Of Course they didnt find any major WMD's. The UN wasnt allowed to do random searches for them. Its not hard to hide something if you know where the people are going to be looking. The point is, he said he had no WMD's. And he did. whether or not they posed an immediate risk to the US or not. To have the technology, and have us look the other way only would have bought him the time to get the technology to make one able to attack us. Use your head, just because there was no immediate threat, doesnt mean there wasnt a threat. And you think it costs a lot now. Imagine we let it go, they got the technology and Hussein had gotten all 7 palestinian nations together before he attacked us and we had to fight back then. That would have cost a sh*tload. Why not just go ahead and foresee a problem, and take care of it before it escalates. Isnt that the first step of conflict resolution. damagae control. Of course you are probably one of those people 10 years from now, if we hadnt taken him out, that would still be bashing Bush for his lack of action when we got attacked....

[Alan®]

A) The weapons were there pre Gulf War, so if anything they should have been cleared out back then.

B) Since they were there pre Gulf War they're not new WMDs, therefore Saddam wasn't building anything new that could affect that U.S.

C) The range of this weapons is so small that it poses no danger to the U.S. at all. The only danger it poses to are the U.S. Troops stationed there, who really shouldn't even be there.


D) Have they found any WMDs that posed any kind of danger to the U.S.? Nope.


Ok I got halfway through the first page and this made me go :thinking: .Ok so which is it? Did they find WMD's are not. Sorry but I really don't see the relevance whether they were constructed before the gulf war or after. A WMD is a WMD. PERIOD. And weapons are mobile. What was to stop Saddam from doing what the Soviet Union did during the 60's and just move the things in range. It's funny how people say this war is fruitless simply because they watch the news. I have had friends that have gone over there and said both positive and negative things about the war. Also I love how the mainstream media missed out on how we have now acheived 12 of the 17 or however many objectives they have over there. The press is always guaranteed to do one thing spin negatively. Which is why frankly I don't watch it that much anymore.

[ironchef]

except hitler was attacking those other countries that were involved in the war, and he wasnt/isnt the focus of war on terror, and i dont know if they have been planted or not.The war on terror comment was aimed at Saddam not Hitler. I was just too lazy to break up your quote.


So what you're saying is because he had been doing it for a long time, we needed to let him continue? NO, He was commiting mass murder and it wasnt just that. He did not comply with UN regulations numerous times. No, of course we don't need to let him continue. But he shouldn't have been such a big focus when he wasn't behind 9/11.

Of Course they didnt find any major WMD's. The UN wasnt allowed to do random searches for them. Its not hard to hide something if you know where the people are going to be looking. The point is, he said he had no WMD's. And he did. whether or not they posed an immediate risk to the US or not. To have the technology, and have us look the other way only would have bought him the time to get the technology to make one able to attack us. Use your head, just because there was no immediate threat, doesnt mean there wasnt a threat. Of course theres always a threat, theres no denying that. Theres would have been nothing wrong if Bush sent some troops to Iraq in order to have a presence there, but to go on a full scale war, because he thought there might be WMDs? Thats not a terribly smart move to disjoint the military so much, especially when theres other more potential serious threats around the world, such as North Korea with their nuclear missiles.


And you think it costs a lot now. Imagine we let it go, they got the technology and Hussein had gotten all 7 palestinian nations together before he attacked us and we had to fight back then. That would have cost a sh*tload. Why not just go ahead and foresee a problem, and take care of it before it escalates. Isnt that the first step of conflict resolution. damagae control. Of course you are probably one of those people 10 years from now, if we hadnt taken him out, that would still be bashing Bush for his lack of action when we got attacked....

Do you honestly think Saddam could've had planned something and gotten 7 palestinian nations in cohorts without the U.S. knowing about it? Come on now. As far as Bush taking action, I have no beef with that, my beef is the fact that he could have handled the situation a lot better than he did.



Ok I got halfway through the first page and this made me go :thinking: .Ok so which is it? Did they find WMD's are not. Sorry but I really don't see the relevance whether they were constructed before the gulf war or after. A WMD is a WMD. PERIOD. And weapons are mobile. What was to stop Saddam from doing what the Soviet Union did during the 60's and just move the things in range. It's funny how people say this war is fruitless simply because they watch the news. I have had friends that have gone over there and said both positive and negative things about the war. Also I love how the mainstream media missed out on how we have now acheived 12 of the 17 or however many objectives they have over there. The press is always guaranteed to do one thing spin negatively. Which is why frankly I don't watch it that much anymore.How do you not see relevence? One of Bushes major reasons for invading Iraq was because they had WMDs. Well they've had WMDs since before the Gulf War, what was the point of waiting till 2002-2003 to take them out?

I've also had friends go over there, and they all came back with negative views on the subject. Eventually the point comes down to this, this shouldn't still be going on, it should've been over by now, but its not its just costing more lives and money.

[redrumracer]

The war on terror comment was aimed at Saddam not Hitler. I was just too lazy to break up your quote.

yea i know, so was my comment.

[Alan®]

The war on terror comment was aimed at Saddam not Hitler. I was just too lazy to break up your quote.

No, of course we don't need to let him continue. But he shouldn't have been such a big focus when he wasn't behind 9/11.
Of course theres always a threat, theres no denying that. Theres would have been nothing wrong if Bush sent some troops to Iraq in order to have a presence there, but to go on a full scale war, because he thought there might be WMDs? Thats not a terribly smart move to disjoint the military so much, especially when theres other more potential serious threats around the world, such as North Korea with their nuclear missiles.



Do you honestly think Saddam could've had planned something and gotten 7 palestinian nations in cohorts without the U.S. knowing about it? Come on now. As far as Bush taking action, I have no beef with that, my beef is the fact that he could have handled the situation a lot better than he did.

How do you not see relevence? One of Bushes major reasons for invading Iraq was because they had WMDs. Well they've had WMDs since before the Gulf War, what was the point of waiting till 2002-2003 to take them out?

I've also had friends go over there, and they all came back with negative views on the subject. Eventually the point comes down to this, this shouldn't still be going on, it should've been over by now, but its not its just costing more lives and money.
1. They might have :thinking: Didn't we already establish that they did?

2. I think that 9/11 tought us that it really doesn't matter whether we know about it or not. We knew about 9/11 but it still happened.

3. I don't see the relevance because your basically saying that since they were there before the gulf war we should have basically not worred about them and that they didn't pose any kind of threat to the U.S. I mean seriously you can't have it both ways. Ok we waited forever to do something about it but better late than never.

[stillaneon]

No, of course we don't need to let him continue. But he shouldn't have been such a big focus when he wasn't behind 9/11.
Of course theres always a threat, theres no denying that. Theres would have been nothing wrong if Bush sent some troops to Iraq in order to have a presence there, but to go on a full scale war, because he thought there might be WMDs? Thats not a terribly smart move to disjoint the military so much, especially when theres other more potential serious threats around the world, such as North Korea with their nuclear missiles.

So rather than 1000 miles, you would rather him move troops halfway across the world?? Who care whether or not he was behind 9-11? The war on terror wasn't strictly against Bin Laden, It was against terrorists. I think Hussein easily falls into that category.



Do you honestly think Saddam could've had planned something and gotten 7 palestinian nations in cohorts without the U.S. knowing about it? Come on now. As far as Bush taking action, I have no beef with that, my beef is the fact that he could have handled the situation a lot better than he did.


Why Not? IT happened to Israel. Luckily Someone seems to be watching over them:D

And no sh*t he could have done it better, all I can safely say is, that he has and will continue to do a better job than Gore or Kerry (who could have been in office when the planes hit:eek: )


How do you not see relevence? One of Bushes major reasons for invading Iraq was because they had WMDs. Well they've had WMDs since before the Gulf War, what was the point of waiting till 2002-2003 to take them out?

Ok, and he was busy from 2001 until the invasion having to answer the call of duty after a major attack on our country. Sorry he didnt attack Hussein before 9-11. Chances are, all of you that did nothing but talk down about him after his election took a little time. Not to mention him having to answer all your bitching and moaning after the attacks about what he was gonna do....


I've also had friends go over there, and they all came back with negative views on the subject. Eventually the point comes down to this, this shouldn't still be going on, it should've been over by now, but its not its just costing more lives and money.

Ok, and the person that the country elected and pays, says that you are wrong.

He does get paid to make these decisions. And considering that you werent old enough to vote against or for him, it kind of doesnt give you the right to ***** about the way he does his job