Bush's War in Iraq

[Richy Rich]

Just to bring everyone up to speed as to why we're in Iraq.

The war with Iraq goes back to Bush Sr.

It appears that Bush Sr. was intentionally baiting Saddam to invade Iraq. Dizzy (AKA April) Glaspie was appointed Ambassador to Iraq (huh?). She had ONE meeting w/ him in her 2 years there. Here is a transcript of the fateful exchange between Dizzy and Saddam.

July 26th, 1990

President Saddam Hussein:
"If we could keep the whole of the Shatt al Arab - our strategic goal in our war with Iran - we will make concessions (to the Kuwaitis). But if we are forced to choose between keeping half of the Shatt and the whole of Iraq (which, in Iraq's view, includes Kuwait), then we will give up all of the Shatt to defend our claims on Kuwait to keep the whole of Iraq in the shape we wish it to be. (pause) What is the United States' opinion on this?"

US Ambassador Glaspie:
"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasise the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

Then, two days before Saddam's invasion - July 31st - more bait by Bush Sr. 's administration to Saddam.

John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testified to Congress:
"United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the US has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."

A month later a journalist asked Glaspie:
"You knew Saddam was going to invade (Kuwait), but you didn't warn him not to. You didn't tell him America would defend Kuwait. You told him the opposite - that America was not associated with Kuwait.

Then another journalist:
"You encouraged this aggression - his invasion. What were you thinking?"

Glaspie finally answered:
"Obviously, I didn't think, and nobody else did, that the Iraqis were going to take all of Kuwait."
(Note: The operative word there is 'all')

So why would Bush Sr. invite Hussein into Kuwait? Just to get a war going? Who knows? But the invitation by Bush Sr. to attack Iraq is there - and undisputable.

Then we have Bush Jr....Here is a link, all supported by concrete facts showing Bush's single-minded determination to invade Iraq...well before 9/11.

http://www.downingstreetmemo.c...r=date&order_type=ASC


But Bush was facing a major dilemma. He certainly couldn't call up the National Guard just b/c Hussein wasn't abiding by the UN resolutions. He needed something BIG to happen... Some real good excuse to get troops located to the Middle East first. Well, we all know what happened...A miracle. 9/11 occurred. But was it really a miracle?

1) We know Bush's State Dept. had de facto stand-down orders to let [everyone] obtain traveling visas to the US thru Saudi Arabia. 15 of the terrorist had applications [thu Saudi Arabia] that should have been denied.

2) The FBI had de facto stand down orders on terrorist activities (cells) in this country.

Incidentally, there are hundreds of FBI counter-terrorism special agents. I sure would like to know what they were all doing between 1996 and 2001. I don't recall any arrests of theirs [regarding terrorism] making the headlines.

Oh, should mention the FBI's counter-terrorism budget was being stalled in Congress at the time of 9/11...

Bush's post 9/11 America: I had to sit next to a ten-year-old (blonde) girl at airport check-in. We had to remove our shoes, lift our bare feet and wait for a rotund black female to inspect the bottom of them.

Gotta Love this country fellas

[Mjulian]

Gotcha. It's America's fault.

Whew, I was concerned there for the last 15 years that maybe something bad in the world had taken place that wasn't America's fault.

Thank you so much for sharing, Rich.

Why don't you stick around awhile, the bus to fvcktardville doesn't leave for a few hours yet.






Isn't it amazing how man complete and utter morons find this forum? Please, Rich, make like Fenway and add an upper deck.

[Richy Rich]

Well, your post is poorly written...and poorly thought out, Mjulian. Nevertheless, I'll condescend to a response.

Okay you called me a moron. Why? Are there factual errors you dispute?

1)Bush Sr. 'created' the first Iraq war. That, sir/ma'am is NO theory. It is a fact.

2)The FBI was on de facto stand-down on terrorist activities in the this country. That's a fact.

3)The State Dept. did allow 15 terrorist to travel thru Saudi Arabia...with falsified an/or incomplete information. Another fact.

4) Bush was interested in a war with Iraq well before 9/11. READ THE LINK. I provided it b/c this link supports its findings with REAL facts.

BTW, I'm an Arizona Republican. But I am no supporter of Bush's war. I don't goose step to Republican Party talking points...

[alysheba88]

MJulian- serious question. Really. How do you think the war in Iraq is going? Do you see progress from a US and Iraqi perspective. Is there anything the US has done wrong since invading? Again serious question not being a smart ass

[guitarzan]

AND, you never get to the purpose. I don't discount your theories. The Bushes obviously had a hard-on for Iraq. But why? I've always thought that the Saudis own the Bushes and they were terrified of having Sadaam in power right next door. So rather then Sadaam being a threat to us, he was a threat to the Saudis who demanded that GWjr. do something.

[Richy Rich]

guitarzan,

I don't know why Bush sr. wanted to bait Hussein into invading Kuwait. He certainly knew it would require a military response - a massive one. Maybe he (Bush Sr.) didn't want the psychopath Uday inheriting his dad's position. I have no doubt this was a behind-closed-doors decision (probably by James Baker - he seemed to be running the whole show back then) to bait Saddam. GW jr. wanted to finish the job.

Wars are also a GREAT way to run up HUGE fed. deficits - Bush's have fixation on running deficits. In fact, more than 40% of our total federal debt - accumulated over the last 215 years - comes from these two.

[Mjulian]

Condescend to a response? Don't debase yourself for me pal. And by the way, that ain't no Shakespeare either.

Other than the Downing Street Memo link, I see NO proof of any of the "facts" you claim. Nothing. No citations, footnotes, nada. Because it comes from your fingers on the keyboard makes it fact? Show me facts, don't regurgitate something you read on some website. If there's a transcript of a meeting between a US Diplomat and Saddam Hussein, let me see it in its entirety. Paraphrased hearsay is less than nothing. It's anti-matter that erodes the truth.

Show me the State Dept. stand-down directives, show me the FBI stand-down directives. Etc., etc.



Aly, good questions. I am very disapointed with the how poorly this war was conceived, planned and executed. As you know I was, and remain, strongly in favor of this action. If planned and executed properly, this war could have been a far more effective deterrent to the inhumanity inflicted on this planet by barbarians in the pursuit of their corrupted version of Islam. However, due to many factors, the majority (but not all) of which are Bush and his incompetent Cabinet's doing, it has become farcical. I have quite a laundry list that spares very few but it's late and I work NY hours and am up past my bedtime. Perhaps tomorrow I'll discuss this further.

[guitarzan]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Mjulian

Condescend to a response? Don't debase yourself for me pal. And by the way, that ain't no Shakespeare either.



Other than the Downing Street Memo link, I see NO proof of any of the "facts" you claim. Nothing. No citations, footnotes, nada. Because it comes from your fingers on the keyboard makes it fact? Show me facts, don't regurgitate something you read on some website. If there's a transcript of a meeting between a US Diplomat and Saddam Hussein, let me see it in its entirety. Paraphrased hearsay is less than nothing. It's anti-matter that erodes the truth.



Show me the State Dept. stand-down directives, show me the FBI stand-down directives. Etc., etc.







Aly, good questions. I am very disapointed with the how poorly this war was conceived, planned and executed. As you know I was, and remain, strongly in favor of this action. If planned and executed properly, this war could have been a far more effective deterrent to the inhumanity inflicted on this planet by barbarians in the pursuit of their corrupted version of Islam. However, due to many factors, the majority (but not all) of which are Bush and his incompetent Cabinet's doing, it has become farcical. I have quite a laundry list that spares very few but it's late and I work NY hours and am up past my bedtime. Perhaps tomorrow I'll discuss this further.</end quote></div>



The problem with this "war" is simple. It was never a war. When you are attacked by a country, you obliterate them. When you are not attacked by a country you can't morally wipe them off the face of the earth. Iraq never had anything to do with 911. If they did there would be a big hole where Iraq used to be and no one would have said a word.

There was never a reason for this war or for you to support it. To say that we were threatened is a lie. To say that we will be better off because Iraq will be democratic is not only a lie, it a fantasy. Iran is a democracy. Good luck with that.

If GWdork would have just said, "hey, we're running low on oil and these assholes have a bunch, so we're gonna take it". I would've been fine with that.

Instead the asshole spent all of our money on fixing the very chaos he created. It's our money. Not his. In order to spend it he needs to convince congress that it is necessary. He lied to Congress to get the money. He cherry-picked intelligence to make his case. He knew the intelligence was bullshit. His dad was the head of the CIA. GW is a thief, liar and criminal. It is illegal to lie to Congress.

Lest you think I'm some kind of bleeding heart, I don't give a ***** about the Iraqi people. I give a ***** about Americans.

[Richy Rich]

Mjulian, do you really think I would stoop to level of manufacturing conversations to support my views/opinions?

Here's your link Mjulian.
http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews...-12-2005/world/w2.htm



As for the State Dept. stand-down , well, letting 15 Arab males into this country with incomplete and/or falsified visa applications sure SMACKS of STAND-DOWN to me at the least, criminal negligence at most.

And as for the stand-down orders for the FBI, C'mon! Do you really believe such a directive exists? All one has to do is read between the lines here...and connect the dots.


FBI Warned on Training Before 11th
By The Associated Press
May 3, 2002 | Filed at 10:15 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two months before the suicide hijackings, an FBI agent in Arizona alerted Washington headquarters that several Middle Easterners were training at a U.S. aviation school and recommended contacting other schools nationwide where Arabs might be studying.

"FBIHQ should discuss this matter with other elements of the U.S. intelligence community and task the community for any information that supports Phoenix's suspicions," the agent recommended in the memo obtained by The Associated Press.

The FBI sent the intelligence to its terrorism experts in Washington and New York for analysis and had begun discussing conducting a nationwide canvass of flight schools when the Sept. 11 tragedies occurred, officials told AP.

At least one leader of the 19 hijackers, Hani Hanjour, received flight training in Arizona in 2001 but his name had not surfaced in the FBI intelligence from Arizona, the officials said.

None of the Middle Eastern men identified by the Arizona counterterrorism agents or any information contained in their July 2001 memo pointed to the suicide plot that leveled the World Trade Center and killed thousands in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, officials said.

"None of the people identified by Phoenix are connected to the Sept. 11 attacks," FBI Assistant Director John Collingwood said Thursday night.

"The Phoenix communication went to appropriate operational agents and analysts but it did not lead to uncovering the impending attacks," Collingwood said.

Officials said FBI counterterrorism agents in Phoenix were suspicious why several Arab men were seeking airport operations, security information and pilot training. The agents recommended that the FBI begin alerting local offices when Middle Easterners sought visas for training at local aeronautical schools.

"FBIHQ should consider seeking the necessary authority to obtain visa information from the USDOS (State Department) on individuals obtaining visas to attend these types of schools and notify the appropriate FBI field office when these individuals are scheduled to arrive in their area of responsibility," the memo said.

The FBI's concerns about the U.S. flight schools is the latest revelation about information, much of it sketchy, that the government possessed before Sept. 11 concerning the possibility of terrorism in the skies. For example:

--AP reported last month that Filipino authorities alerted the FBI as early as 1995 that several Middle Eastern pilots were training at American flight schools and at least one had proposed hijacking a commercial jet and crashing it into federal buildings.

--A month after the 2001 memo from Arizona to FBI headquarters, FBI agents in Minnesota arrested a French citizen of Moroccan descent, Zacarias Moussaoui, after a flight school instructor became suspicious of his desire to learn to fly a commercial jet.

Moussaoui has since emerged as the single most important defendant in the post-Sept. 11 terrorism investigation, charged with conspiring with the hijackers and Osama bin Laden to kill thousands of Americans. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

--About the same time as the Phoenix memo and Moussaoui's arrest, U.S. intelligence issued a late summer warning that there was heightened risk of a terrorist attack on Americans, possibly even on U.S. soil, officials have said.

Law enforcement officials said in retrospect the FBI believes it should have accelerated the suggested check of U.S. flight schools after Moussaoui's arrest but does not believe it would have led to the hijackers.

FBI officials said a supervisory agent in Arizona wrote a several-page memo to FBI headquarters in July 2001 laying out information his counterterrorism team had developed in an unrelated investigation. A portion of the memo dealt with an Arizona flight school, officials said.

The memo indicated agents were suspicious about why several nonresident Arab men were seeking training at a commercial aeronautical school in Prescott, Ariz.

Collingwood said the men "were enrolled in various aspects of civil aviation engineering, airport operations and pilot training." The agents were particularly concerned that some were attempting to learn about airport security operations, officials said.

The Phoenix memo urged FBI headquarters to assemble a list of U.S. aviation academies and to instruct field offices across the country to make "appropriate liaison" with their local schools where other Middle Easterners might be training.

The information was shared with intelligence analysts who monitored terrorist threats and was even sent to the FBI office in New York that had the most experience with terrorism cases, officials said.

After the suicide attacks, the FBI quickly descended upon flight schools nationwide, identifying academies in Florida, Arizona and elsewhere where the leaders of the 19 hijackers trained.

Hanjour, believed to have piloted the jetliner that crashed into the Pentagon, trained at a flight academy in Phoenix between January and March 2001, the government has said in court documents.

Some witnesses have also said they believe another hijacker, Ziad Samir Jarrah, trained on an Arizona flight simulator in the months before the attacks. But the FBI has no evidence that either man was connected to the Prescott school identified in the July 2001 memo, officials said.

The FBI also investigated whether an Algerian pilot who spent time in Arizona may have helped train the hijackers before leaving the United States before the attacks.

That man, Lotfi Raissi, was later apprehended in Britain, but U.S. officials failed to persuade a court there to extradite him to the United States. Law enforcement officials say their suspicions about his connections to the hijackers have since fizzled.

An Arizona businessman who assisted U.S. intelligence said he alerted the FBI in the mid-1990s that one or more Middle Eastern pilots were training or working in his state and appeared suspicious.

Harry Ellen said he told an FBI agent in Phoenix in late 1996 or early 1997 that he met an Algerian pilot and several Middle Eastern men at an Arizona mosque. Ellen assisted U.S. intelligence during the 1990s but later had a falling out over his business and personal dealings in Asia and the Middle East.

"I brought this to the attention of an agent in the local FBI whom I knew," Ellen said. "They did not seem particularly interested in the presence of these people. I stressed it was very odd that the Algerian man was involved in aviation

[Richy Rich]

"As you know I was, and remain, strongly in favor of this action. If planned and executed properly, this war could have been a far more effective deterrent to the inhumanity inflicted on this planet by barbarians in the pursuit of their corrupted version of Islam."



I don't mean to be hard on this fella, but this response is indicative of someone who's NOT fully informed.

First, and I don't mean to niggle here, but the use of the word "war"' is a misnomer. There was no war. This was an invasion...that resulted in the unnecessary slaughter of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent people.

Second, I thought by now it was common knowledge the Sunni led gov't of Saddam Hussein was nonsectarian. So, using simple deductive reasoning, there was no gov't sponsored "corrupted version of Islam."


Third, Iraq was NOT inflicting "inhumanity" on the planet.

Finally, this "war" could NEVER have been "planned and executed properly".

Then again, maybe MJulian would be kind enough to explain to all of us just *how* this American invasion could have been planned and executed better.

[Mjulian]

Richy,

Let me get this straight. Your source for the supposed "transcript" of a "private meeting" between Glaspie and Hussein is a Pakastani newspaper? You must be joking. Try again.

And your "proof" of a State Dept. stand-down is the fact that a dozen or so Arabs entered the US pre-911 fraudulently? I see.

The FBI accusation. Connect the dots? Read between the lines? Jesus, I hope you're not a judge when you're not in the War Room presenting flimsy support for half-baked theories.

As for the AP article whose lines we're supposed to be parting to reveal truths, you make a poor, unsubstantiated leap from incompetence to conspiracy.

The next time you attempt to present an opinion as fact, please provide legitimate supporting documentation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as your follow-up post, Richy, war is defined as: A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. an invasion is defined as: The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory. By my understanding these are not mutually exclusive. And I do believe the US met and continues to meet military resistance.

"unnecessary slaughter of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent people." What in God's name are you on? The most recent count of civilian deaths resulting from the War in Iraq is 43,520. You can find data here: Iraq Body Count; a nice liberal-minded site that actually gathers facts. And by the way, that casualty number includes all the deaths resulting from the actions of insurgents, foreign-born terrorists, and Sunni/Shiite civil agression.

You said: "So, using simple deductive reasoning, there was no gov't sponsored "corrupted version of Islam." Your intelligence falls a little flat here Rich. Re-read the statement. My meaning there was pretty clear, but allow me to translate:

Had the US executed this war effectively, and in the manner I had hoped, terrorists, and paticularly the nations which sponsor them (mostly in that region), would reevaluate, post-haste, out of fear of meeting the same fate. Now, many would say that this iw wishful thinking. But the Bush camp mucked this thing up so bad that in fact, the opposite has occurred: Iran, Syria, North Korea, et. al. are infact emboldened.

Obviously I am not referring to an ay attempt to deter Iraq , as it is that country whose regime we are changing and thus no "deterrent" is necessary as we are fomenting a governemnt that will not sponsor terrorism. Right? So, you're second point there is moot based on your misread. Although, of course, Iraq, did in fact sponsor terrorism.

Your third point is irrelevant for the reasons discussed above. But, for the record, the Saddam Hussein government engaged in quite barbaric and inhuman acts against the Iraqi population, whom I would consider part of the planet.

As for your second to last statement, that's your opinion, thanks for sharing it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Guitarzan, your argumets are little too sloppy and disjointed. That said, you appear to be concluding that unless one is directly attacked, there is no basis for war or any kind of military intervention. However, in another thread you surmise: "The first Bush started and ended a WAR." as opposed to his son who "re-created Vietnam". Correct me if I am wrong, but this statement regarding Bush Sr. seems to be at odds with your requirements for engagin in military action.

As for directing me what I can and can't support, thanks for the help, Ma.

The rest of your post is just a gaggle of confused rambling. I don't think there's anything else requiring a response.

[alysheba88]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Mjulian

Condescend to a response? Don't debase yourself for me pal. And by the way, that ain't no Shakespeare either.



Other than the Downing Street Memo link, I see NO proof of any of the "facts" you claim. Nothing. No citations, footnotes, nada. Because it comes from your fingers on the keyboard makes it fact? Show me facts, don't regurgitate something you read on some website. If there's a transcript of a meeting between a US Diplomat and Saddam Hussein, let me see it in its entirety. Paraphrased hearsay is less than nothing. It's anti-matter that erodes the truth.



Show me the State Dept. stand-down directives, show me the FBI stand-down directives. Etc., etc.







Aly, good questions. I am very disapointed with the how poorly this war was conceived, planned and executed. As you know I was, and remain, strongly in favor of this action. If planned and executed properly, this war could have been a far more effective deterrent to the inhumanity inflicted on this planet by barbarians in the pursuit of their corrupted version of Islam. However, due to many factors, the majority (but not all) of which are Bush and his incompetent Cabinet's doing, it has become farcical. I have quite a laundry list that spares very few but it's late and I work NY hours and am up past my bedtime. Perhaps tomorrow I'll discuss this further.</end quote></div>

Fair enough

[Richy Rich]

Mjulian wrote:
"But the Bush camp mucked this thing up so bad that in fact, the opposite has occurred: Iran, Syria, North Korea, et. al. are infact emboldened."

Mjulian, that you're willing to admit that Bush Jr. is actually fallible, shows hope.


First, with regard to the State Dept. & FBI "de facto" stand-downs, I cited what I believe to be a credible circumstantial evidence to reach my conclusion. It is your right to disagree. The OJ Simpson jury also disagreed with the circumstantial *evidence* ...


As for Bush Sr. "baiting" Saddam Hussein, even if you choose to ignore the heresy testimony from the Paki interpreter, it is still absolutely clear that Ambassador Glaspie did NOT advise Hussein that if the 30,000 troops he had recently mustered to the border of Kuwait, if those [Iraqi] troops crossed into Kuwait, the US would respond militarily. This inference (Glaspie did NOT warn Hussien) can be drawn from (an undisputable source you choose to ignore) John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, testimony to Congress (2 days before he invaded):
"United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the US has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq."


Of course, I chose to believe that Hussein never would have invaded Iraq if he had been warned of a US military response. If you want to believe- fanaticize - otherwise...it's your right.


Mjulian, you also wrote:
"Had the US executed this war effectively, and in the manner I had hoped, terrorists, and particularly the nations which sponsor them (mostly in that region), would reevaluate, post-haste, out of fear of meeting the same fate."


Here is the way I interpret this: Don't get us angry or we'll do to you what we did/are doing to the Iraqis... If this is what you're implying, very scary...MIGHT makes right...

Further, is there a template for invading a country and establishing a "regime"? The US was "effective" in the invasion, weren't we? We marched straight to Baghdad virtually unopposed. we then tried to establish a democracy in Iraq. A laudable goal - unachievable, but laudable.

What would you have suggested the US have done differently? Keeping in mind Sunnis would NEVER accept a political equation which would leave them subordinated to either the Kurds or the Shiites (Shiites and Kurds represent apprx. 75% of the population) . Won't hold my breath waiting for this one.


And as for my comment about "unnecessary slaughter of hundreds and hundreds of thousands of innocent people" I picked that up from another site. It was suppose to read "hundreds and hundreds of thousands of 'victims'". And I assume "victims" refers to the dead, wounded/ maimed and missing in Iraq.

[guitarzan]

All because of a yahoo with a hard-on for Saddam Hussein. Saddam was powerless. Bush, Sr. f-ed him up. GW lied to Congress to get the money and more importantly to create an urgency that didn't exist. This is SO ILLEGAL it's hilarious.

This asshole should be in jail. What do you think would happen if you lied to Congress?

[guitarzan]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Guitarzan, your argumets are little too sloppy and disjointed. That said, you appear to be concluding that unless one is directly attacked, there is no basis for war or any kind of military intervention. However, in another thread you surmise: "The first Bush started and ended a WAR." as opposed to his son who "re-created Vietnam". Correct me if I am wrong, but this statement regarding Bush Sr. seems to be at odds with your requirements for engagin in military action.



As for directing me what I can and can't support, thanks for the help, Ma.



The rest of your post is just a gaggle of confused rambling. I don't think there's anything else requiring a response.</end quote></div>


I'll explain it like this; when you are attacked in the street you can use self-defense within the law. Self-defense is defined as doing whatever is necessary to prevent your harm.

Now, in the defense of another person you can do whatever is necessary to prevent harm to yourself as well as the other person which allows a more vigorous defense.

There are other situations where war is acceptable, not only a direct attack.

What doesn't make sense is the idea of "preventative" war OR a military action designed to protect a country or its people from an "ideology" that your stupid ass president believes is dangerous because it does not conform to his lame ass Christian ideals.

The reason my "ramblings" are confusing is because you're an idiot. You think you're real intelligent, but your arrogance gives you away.

Life, war, etc.. is very simple. People like yourself are easily confused by conspiracy theories and intricate sub-plots.

Our leaders know this.

As far as what you can support; that's why this country is so great because fools like you have never had to fight for anything (I'm guessing) so you have no idea what's involved.

You have a false bravado that is designed to mask your fear of everything.

Do you know any Middle-eastern people? I mean in the same age group as the "terrorists". They are the biggest pussies on earth. They are not intelligent by any standard. They are not clever. They are not anything to be afraid of and your president has convinced you that they are soooooo dangerous. They are going to be fighting us in our own streets! GIVE ME A *****ING BREAK.

What would you do? Hide in your house?

Probably.

GW has scared you shitless with a story that doesn't even really try to make sense. You bought it hook, line and sinker because he played on your fear.

[The Actuary]

The best thing abt delusional morons-



is there is always no cost of inaction.



and btw moron-


the war did not embolden anybody-the time it is taking is-who's fault is that? Well if we had turned the whole country into a sandbox on day one, would anyone be emboldended at this point? Nah course not but have to pacify those liberalscumbags.

it did the direct opposite, instead of having problems in Egypt and Syria, we don't-

and it delayed issues with both Iran and North Korea.





Pacifying the liberalscumbag press has drawn out what should have taken 10mins into years-

or wait-we supposed to believe the 70 TD dog is staying in the game?



The biggest joke of all of course is your pretend concern for innocent lives lost.
What about all the lives he built his empire with? Freeing the oppressed is always cool unless it happens to coincide with a republican president-you people are a fukkin emabarassment to the human race-you free-fvck everyone else.

The ultimate endgame is a US led military action. Maybe 38more UN violations or 138 violations down the line, the guy nor his sons were going to go away and they figured to only become more threatening with every passing moment.


Waiting meant more money, more lives lost.


There is no hope for you, <u>you were born of the loins of a fukkin moron</u> and as such will remain one forever-

the zero foresight and ignorance of the costs of inaction are walking moron medals.



<u>THERE WILL BE NO TRASHING OF OTHER POSTERS' FAMILIES OR LOVED ONES IN THE WAR ROOM, PERIOD.

NEXT TIME, YOU'RE BANNED.</u>

[Richy Rich]

I'm not at all sure what The Actuary just wrote above. I can pick out a couple words I'm familiar with...but I have absolutely no idea what he's trying to say.

Bcause I don't post here much I'm not familiar with everyone. I'm curious, tho, is The Actuary the village idiot at majorwager?

[guitarzan]

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Richy Rich

I'm not at all sure what The Actuary just wrote above. I can pick out a couple words I'm familiar with...but I have absolutely no idea what he's trying to say.



Bcause I don't post here much I'm not familiar with everyone. I'm curious, tho, is The Actuary the village idiot at majorwager?</end quote></div>



I'm not sure if he/she was, but I think he is campaigning. I'll vote for him/her.

[The Actuary]

Guitarzan stop wasting your time,


I put 20something pay no taxes, know nothing live in delusional dream worlds on ignore.

That would be you, you fukkin idiot-

do not worry moron, soon your liberalscumbags will have the whitehouse and we can pay upwards of 90% of our income to taxes-JUST LIKE THE LAST TIME A LIBERAL PICE OF SHIT WAS IN OFFICE-

WHY?

CAUSE THEY CONVINCE FUKKIN IDIOTS LIKE YOU THAT THE CONFLICT IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE TRILLION DOLLARS IN TAX CUTS.





To the other fukkin moron-


that is exactly the problem-

course you do not understand-I posted in clear, concise and cogent english

that is why they use you fukkin idiots as mouth pieces-

moronic nitwits that will spread the agenda without an iota of cognizant understanding.