COL Gene COL Gene

YES WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ!

▼

YES WE ARE WINNING IN IRAQ!

from JoeUser Forums
BAGHDAD - Outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, whose premiership has been dominated by his unpopular decision to join the Iraq war, arrived here on a farewell visit Saturday, and three mortar shells or rockets slammed into the compound where he met with Iraq's leaders.

BAGHDAD - The American military widened the search for three missing U.S. soldiers, detaining nine people in a raid Saturday about 25 miles northwest of where the Americans were captured last weekend.

The U.S. command said Saturday five more American soldiers were killed. One died Saturday from a roadside bomb south of Baghdad. Four died Friday - one in the western province of Anbar, one by small arms fire south of the capital and two by a roadside bomb and small arms fire in northwestern Baghdad, the military said.


TIME TO SEND THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF and Draft Dogger Dick to Fight in Iraq
politics
31,071 views 125 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
“and taking their weapons away wouldn't have stopped the violence either”

That is NOT correct. The weapons should not have fallen into the hands of the violent groups that are causing the fighting. We allowed the radical elements that were held in check by Saddam to emerge and armed them selves from over 200 locations within Iraq. We did not stop foreign terrorists from crossing into Iraq. We did not did we stop foreign arms from being brought into Iraq. We did not prevent al Qaeda from setting operations in western Iraq. The reason for ALL these things is because Bush did not listen to the military and send enough troops to accomplish the mission of BOTH removing Saddam from power and controlling the radical elements within and outside Iraq.
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
The weapons should not have fallen into the hands of the violent groups that are causing the fighting.


which ones are the violent ones before they become violent


We allowed the radical elements that were held in check by Saddam to emerge and armed them selves from over 200 locations within Iraq.


all muslims about 90% are radical if not today then tomorrow
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
danielost


"Which ones are the violent ones before they become violent?"

If we would have sent the 500,000 troops required, no groups except the established government military we trained would have had access to the weapons. No Foreign terrorists or foreign weapons would have been brought into Iraq if we would have controlled the borders. However with the 150,000 troops Bush sent those missions were not possible!
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top
“All Muslims about 90% are radical if not today then tomorrow”

Then why are we killing our troops to protect Iraq which is almost 100% Moslem?
Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
No Foreign terrorists or foreign weapons would have been brought into Iraq if we would have controlled the borders.


we can't control our own borders with more men
Reply #56 from JoeUser Forums Top
Then why are we killing our troops to protect Iraq which is almost 100% Moslem?


becouse that is who we are
Reply #57 from JoeUser Forums Top

"we can't control our own borders with more men"


That is why we needed 500,000 troops not the 150,000 Bush sent!

If Bush has added the 10,000 border guards we could also protect our borders
"because that is who we are"

That is BS. Only a FOOL would protect terrorists.
Reply #58 from PolMach Forums Top


did you forget about 9/11
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, in fact Al queda wanted to overthrow saddam.

did you forget that saddam was paying terriosts
He was paying families of terrorists in Lebannon.

did you forget that saddam taught the 9/11 terriosts how to hi-jack a plane
WHAT??? where in the heck did you get that? Utter nonsense.

and your favorite person clinton not only dodge the draft but he went to russia and supported them and the north vietnameese. but you forgot that didn't you.
Again, utter nonsense, Clinton never went to russia or viet nam.

and when nixon brought the troops home without permission. hillary made up a new law today and made effective yesterday to get him. but he resigned instead of putting the presidency through such a discredit. and then when her husband got in trouble under those same laws. they didn't count. and when it was his turn does he do the honorable thing no. BUT THEN CHARACTER DOESNT MATTER RIGHT.
Number one, ALL politicians are crooks, but WTF about Nixon & Hillary???



character is the only thing that matters
And you are quite a character, with all your mis-information. But then I guess you beleive the bush-Cheney-Halloburton lies.


Reply #59 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: highlander Posted: Tuesday, May 22, 2007


“did you forget about 9/11
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, in fact Al Qaeda wanted to overthrow Saddam.

Did you forget that Saddam was paying terrorists?
He was paying families of terrorists in Lebanon.

Did you forget that Saddam taught the 9/11 terrorists how to hi-jack a plane
WHAT??? Where in the heck did you get that? Utter nonsense.”


This did not constitute A DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY THAT JUSTIFID GOING TO WAR.




“And your favorite person Clinton not only dodges the draft but he went to Russia and supported them and the North Vietnamese. But you forgot that didn't you.
Again, utter nonsense, Clinton never went to Russia or Vietnam.”

First Clinton is far from my favorite person and yes he was a draft dodger just like Cheney. As for Bush he got Daddy to keep his ass out of Vietnam by giving him a commission he did not earn or deserve and then when little George was tired of the responsibilities of obeying orders Daddy got him OUT of the guard with an Honorable Discharge George did not earn or deserve!

Bush and Cheney are GOOD at sending other people’s children into harms way for no justified reason but they did not risk their lives when it was their time to serve. SOME Commander-in-Chief!!!!! I am glad I did not serve when GWB was President!
Reply #60 from JoeUser Forums Top
we can't control our own borders with more men"


That is why we needed 500,000 troops not the 150,000 Bush sent!

If Bush has added the 10,000 border guards we could also protect our borders
"because that is who we are"

That is BS. Only a FOOL would protect terrorists.


dictator gene why are you spicing what i said into what you said trying make me look like a fool

all it does is make you look like a foolish idiot and you and clinton are the ones trying to protect the terrorists
Reply #61 from JoeUser Forums Top
All it does is make you look like a foolish idiot and you and Clinton are the ones trying to protect the terrorists

You are the one that said we can not control our borders. That is BS. Bush is NOT enforcing the laws and is more interested in attacking Iraq then protecting our country! When people like you support what Bush is doing both of you are the fools!
Reply #62 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush is NOT enforcing the laws and is more interested in attacking Iraq then protecting our country! When people like you support what Bush is doing both of you are the fools!


everytime bush tries to enforce those laws the demos jump on him for being racist

we have at least one border patrol officer in prison for defending himself
Reply #63 from JoeUser Forums Top
Every time bush tries to enforce those laws the demos jump on him for being racist . Bush could care less when names the Democrats call him!!!!!!!!
We have at least one border patrol officer in prison for defending himself

Bush has NOT attempted to control the border and he did not request the added guards that HE said are needed. WHY? With the GOP control of Congress he could have added the needed guards and would have had BOTH Republican and Democrat votes. The conviction of the two Border agents was by HIS Justice Dept. These has been an appeal to Bush who has not acted, The fact that 6 years after 9/11 we have NOT secured our borders and are not inspecting the VAST majority of the containers coming through our ports is because of the INACTION of Bush and HIS administration NOT the Democrats.
Reply #64 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush and Cheney are GOOD at sending other people’s children into harms way for no justified reason but they did not risk their lives when it was their time to serve


No worse than Clinton. And please try to think "before" you answer. Your usual response would be "but he never set our troops in harms way for no reason". That would be pure BS and you and I both know it. Or have you already forgotten "Black Hawk down"? Which was based on true events during 1993! Because Somalia was definitely no threat to the US.
Reply #65 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bush declassifies intelligence saying bin Laden ordered attacks outside Iraq
By DEB RIECHMANN (Associated Press Writer)
From Associated Press
May 23, 2007 7:58 AM EDT
WASHINGTON - Seeking to rally support for the war, President Bush released intelligence asserting that Osama bin Laden in 2005 ordered a top lieutenant to form a terrorist unit to hit targets outside Iraq, including the United States.


This story PROVES just how out of touch Bush is about Iraq. WHO ordered al Qaeda to conduct attacks in the U.S.? Answer bin Laden. When did this take place? 2005. HOW the HELL does this show the United States was in danger in 2002 from Saddam? Answer IT DOES NOT. In fact it shows, as did all the intelligence BEFORE and SINCE the invasion, that the danger to the United States was from al Qaeda NOT IRAQ. WHY is al Qaeda able to operate in Iraq? Answer because of our invasion and the fact we did not sent enough troops to prevent foreign terrorists from setting up operations in Iraq just like the ones in Afghanistan where 9/11 WAS PLANNED! Bush is too stupid to see that the Intel he declassified and released shows the fallacy of his policy. We all know that al Qaeda wants and has attacked the United States and U.S. facilities in other parts of the world. It DOES NOT support that Saddam and Iraq was a danger to the United States in 2002-2003!
Reply #66 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply By: drmiler Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Bush and Cheney are GOOD at sending other people’s children into harms way for no justified reason but they did not risk their lives when it was their time to serve


No worse than Clinton. And please try to think "before" you answer. Your usual response would be "but he never set our troops in harms way for no reason". That would be pure BS and you and I both know it. Or have you already forgotten "Black Hawk down"? Which was based on true events during 1993! Because Somalia was definitely no threat to the US.


Lets compare-- Clinton was acting as part of UN supported action and Bush was not. The UN did not sanction the invasion of Iraq despite the fact Bush tried to get their concurrence. Now let’s look at the impact how many Americans were killed and Injured from Clinton compared with Bush? Better think before you answer. How much money did the Clinton actions cost compared with Bush. Better think VERY hard about this one. What is the reaction of the world to the action of Clinton compared with the actions of Bush in Iraq? That will not require any thought! You are so full of BS. You try the same thing every time YOUR BOY is shown to be WRONG-- You want to attack Clinton. Bush is the president and the current state of affairs is because of GWB not CLINTON!!!!!
Reply #67 from JoeUser Forums Top
http://www.defenselink.mil/specials/desert_fox/


Clinton was acting as part of UN supported action and Bush was not. .


Col, aren't you the one who always tells us we are not the enforcement agency of the U.N.?  LMAO!


Reply #68 from JoeUser Forums Top
Clinton was acting as part of UN supported action and Bush was not. .


Col, aren't you the one who always tells us we are not the enforcement agency of the U.N.? LMAO!


I believe there was UN sanction for our action under Clinton. I KNOW there was NO UN approval to Invade Iraq. Also what about the impact in terms of Dead ,Injured and Cost between what Clinton did and what Bush did?


You are the LAMO
Reply #69 from JoeUser Forums Top

Col, aren't you the one who always tells us we are not the enforcement agency of the U.N.?

If the UN Security Council directed FORCE like in Korea, then as part of the UN the United States would be authorized as part of the UN Force to take action. That is NOT what Bush did in Iraq!
Reply #70 from JoeUser Forums Top

If the UN Security Council directed FORCE like in Korea, then as part of the UN the United States would be authorized as part of the UN Force to take action. That is NOT what Bush did in Iraq!


That's not the issue col.  You constantly claim the U.S. is not the "enforcement" agency for the U.N., so you are contradicting yourself as usual.  Once again, it's ok if a democrat does it.


Reply #71 from JoeUser Forums Top

“That's not the issue col. You constantly claim the U.S. is not the "enforcement" agency for the U.N., so you are contradicting yourself as usual. Once again, it's ok if a democrat does it.”


That is correct we are NOT the enforcement agent for the UN. However IF the UN Security Council votes to use force, we can be PART of that UN Force. Our invasion in Iraq was NOT a UN Security Council Action and just because Saddam violated UN Resolutions that did not give the U.S. the authority to invade Iraq! In addition, Iraq did not pose any threat to the United States in 2002-2003 and we have caused the Civil War and the establishment of al Qaeda operations in Iraq. That has NOT made us more secure. Bush is telling us about the danger from al Qaeda in Iraq which we all understand. If Bush had not invaded Iraq, al Qaeda would not be conducting offensive operations in Iraq! We did NOT have a valid reason for our invasion of Iraq since they had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and al Qaeda was not planning operations against the U.S. from Iraq in 2002.
As far as the WMD, it is clear, Bush and Cheney exaggerated that threat and the CIA told Bush that Saddam would not be able to use any WMD he had outside Iraq. Thus even if Saddam had all the Chemical and Boi WMD Bush claimed, it was not a hazard too the U.S. Bush was told by the CIA that Saddam had no nuclear program and all the Mushroom cloud talk was to scare the American people and Congress to approve his invasion plan! We attacked a “Paper Tiger” and then allowed the internal factions and al Qaeda to begin the fighting that we see today and that has killed 3,500 of our troops and injured 29,000 more. Great Going George. How many more American Troops will you allow to be killed and injured needlessly in the Civil war you allowed to develop in Iraq?
Reply #72 from JoeUser Forums Top
why would the UN authorize us to invade iraq when they were getting rich off of iraq
Reply #73 from JoeUser Forums Top
We did NOT have a valid reason for our invasion of Iraq since they had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and al Qaeda was not planning operations against the U.S. from Iraq in 2002.


There were plenty of valid reasons, just because you don't agree doesn't mean they aren't valid.


As far as the WMD, it is clear, Bush and Cheney exaggerated that threat and the CIA told Bush that Saddam would not be able to use any WMD he had outside Iraq. Thus even if Saddam had all the Chemical and Boi WMD Bush claimed, it was not a hazard too the U.S.


Oh, now it's exaggerated.  Did you finally get busted in your lies and change your tune?


Reply #74 from JoeUser Forums Top
Posted: Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Why would the UN authorize us to invade Iraq when they were getting rich off of Iraq?


That is not the issue. The issue is did Bush act within international law when he invaded Iraq? The answer is NO. The UN did not authorize the invasion, we were not attacked by Iraq and we were in no danger from Iraq.


There were plenty of valid reasons, just because you don't agree doesn't mean they aren't valid. What are the reasons?



Oh, now it's exaggerated. Did you finally get busted in your lies and change your tune?

What were exaggerated were the Bush claims of the types and amounts of WMD. The truth is there was NO WMD except for some old gas filled Artillery shells that posed NO danger unless someone invaded Iraq! I did not lie about the WMD or anything else. It was Bush and Cheney that lied about the danger Saddam posed to this country.
Reply #75 from JoeUser Forums Top
That is not the issue. The issue is did Bush act within international law when he invaded Iraq? The answer is NO. The UN did not authorize the invasion, we were not attacked by Iraq and we were in no danger


we do not answer to the UN nore should we

the UN is anti american