Alan wrote:
How about we counter the threat by not invading other countries? Are you afraid the roadside bombs are going to follow us home?
***********
Yes' ma'am! We shouldn't have involved ourselves in Bill Clinton's pants, should we?
ZSpiddy
"Strategic Peril" by Ken Silverstein
Why don't you ever actually answer questions instead of attempting in your lame, pathetic, childish manner to turn it around into a condemnation of your opponent?Total Fucking Coward wrote:Alan wrote:
How about we counter the threat by not invading other countries? Are you afraid the roadside bombs are going to follow us home?
***********
Yes' ma'am! We shouldn't have involved ourselves in Bill Clinton's pants, should we?
Total Fucking Coward
Alan wrote:
When will you admit you were wrong?
***********
Yeah. Maybe we were wrong. We should have just let Saddam take over Kuwait. And let's face it, the 20,000 a year that Saddam was killing in his own country were just Muslims, right? Why do a darn thing about the totalitarian regime they lived under. Muslims aren't really cut out for democracy anyway, are they?
Total Fucking Coward
Wait, I can answer that. It's because you're a fucking bigmouthed moron without a thought in his head. Every response you write has very little to do with the original questions/points made, attempts to change the subject, and can be found in the last years' list of Republican talking points.
If getting rid of totalitarian regimes was so important there's a long list of countries that were far worse than Iraq ever was (before we fucked it up). You're changing the subject because you idiots had no clue and continue to remain clueless about how the world works. Since none of the reasons actually given for invading Iraq turned out to be true (bringing democracy wasn't in that State of the Union address, was it?) I guess you should just make shit up and say that's why.
I really just don't get the Bill Clinton's pants reference. Some guy having sex is equivalent to killing several hundred thousand civilians by starting a war based on lies... how, exactly?
You really should step in front of a bus and make the world a better place.
[size=75]You are as bad as Alan, and even he hits the mark sometimes. -charlie
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
"Not all conservatives are stupid, but most stupid people are conservative." - John Stuart Mill[/size]
Alan wrote:
If getting rid of totalitarian regimes was so important there's a long list of countries that were far worse than Iraq ever was (before we fucked it up).
*************
The primary reason a like to be spanked isn't because I am a naughty boy. Generally I allow gross licking, but Bill Clinton is my hero, and became very fashionable early in the 20th century. Sad he opened a nasty can of whup-ass on me when I forgot to swallow .
ZSpiddy
If getting rid of totalitarian regimes was so important there's a long list of countries that were far worse than Iraq ever was (before we fucked it up).
*************
The primary reason a like to be spanked isn't because I am a naughty boy. Generally I allow gross licking, but Bill Clinton is my hero, and became very fashionable early in the 20th century. Sad he opened a nasty can of whup-ass on me when I forgot to swallow .
ZSpiddy
Yes, these are the same people that were ruling Iraq when we first attacked. Now we are giving them back their guns and telling them to carry on as before with their war on their old enemies.
-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to Battle Old Qaeda Allies
NY TIMES Published: June 11, 2007
BAGHDAD, June 10 — With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.
American commanders say they have successfully tested the strategy in Anbar Province west of Baghdad and have held talks with Sunni groups in at least four areas of central and north-central Iraq where the insurgency has been strong. In some cases, the American commanders say, the Sunni groups are suspected of involvement in past attacks on American troops or of having links to such groups. Some of these groups, they say, have been provided, usually through Iraqi military units allied with the Americans, with arms, ammunition, cash, fuel and supplies.
<snip>
-------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Arming Sunnis in Iraq to Battle Old Qaeda Allies
NY TIMES Published: June 11, 2007
BAGHDAD, June 10 — With the four-month-old increase in American troops showing only modest success in curbing insurgent attacks, American commanders are turning to another strategy that they acknowledge is fraught with risk: arming Sunni Arab groups that have promised to fight militants linked with Al Qaeda who have been their allies in the past.
American commanders say they have successfully tested the strategy in Anbar Province west of Baghdad and have held talks with Sunni groups in at least four areas of central and north-central Iraq where the insurgency has been strong. In some cases, the American commanders say, the Sunni groups are suspected of involvement in past attacks on American troops or of having links to such groups. Some of these groups, they say, have been provided, usually through Iraqi military units allied with the Americans, with arms, ammunition, cash, fuel and supplies.
<snip>
"I am downgrading this thing even though I don't send on TR." Blake while on TR