[cut sifted ephedra sinica]

Who on earth voted for disbandon it entirely?

[rengerts]

3. see number one, plus what is protecting us (the US) from terrirst attacks in ANY way connected to Iraq? ----Which of course has not happened???

Im always glad when this question is asked because it is one that is still unresolved, but has a lot of supporting information. The many after invasion reports issued have detailed the connections between Iraq and Islamic terrorism over the years, including to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. In addition, we captured 2 million documents which have yet to be analyzed but the 50,000 that have have produced some more evidence of the connections.

But to illustrate it simply, AlZaqari and friends are in Iraq, and they are the currently active Al Qaeda cell. Were we not fighting him there, he would be free to attack us at home, from within Iraq or elsewhere.

[fujitsusi]

1.We won the battles over two years ago.
2. all troops lost since then has been lost for nothing.
3. see number one, plus what is protecting us (the US) from terrirst attacks in ANY way connected to Iraq? ----Which of course has not happened???

I knew it would be good, I appreciate the joke, come on into reality, I kind of like the way you people on the left are acting. Please keep it up, the more out there that you guys get, the better it is for us conservatives, so, knock yourself out.

Laughing un-controllably

Todd

[enfoires]

HAHAHAHAHhahahahaa!!!
Way out there, lad!
How about showing some backbone, and recall all U.S. troops home. From all over the world. Defend your own land and stay there!

You would be surprised to see how much less that would cost.

You can't hunt terrorists. You cannot conquer their lands and destroy their economy with embargoes and bombs. They spawn where you make wrong.

Lad?? HA I like it! So, let me get this right, after capturing many terrorists. (Rgardless what the left-wing media wants you to know) The facts are there, let the question is: It shows backbone to turn tail and run after we have stopped various terrorist attacks? Please explain how that statement makes sense.

So, we should surrender to the terrorists? Because that is what you're saying. . . . LAD!

Yours in Conservatism,

Todd

[QYD8eQ8F]

Lad?? HA I like it! So, let me get this right, after capturing many terrorists. (Rgardless what the left-wing media wants you to know) The facts are there, let the question is: It shows backbone to turn tail and run after we have stopped various terrorist attacks? Please explain how that statement makes sense.

So, we should surrender to the terrorists? Because that is what you're saying. . . . LAD!

Yours in Conservatism,

Todd

Who says getting your arses on your own ground would be considered as surrender??

You create more and more terrorists as you roam around in your selfish Crusade. Blame for new terrorists rests in your own shoulders.

OK, then.. lassie. You say left wing media.. hmmm. So all European medias are to the left, right. We are very well informed here, WE do not have govermental quidance on news. How many terrorists are terrorists? If you view any arab as one, then there are quite many.

[leyliana]

Who says getting your arses on your own ground would be considered as surrender??

You create more and more terrorists as you roam around in your selfish Crusade. Blame for new terrorists rests in your own shoulders.

OK, then.. lassie. You say left wing media.. hmmm. So all European medias are to the left, right. We are very well informed here, WE do not have govermental quidance on news. How many terrorists are terrorists? If you view any arab as one, then there are quite many.

Question, we should allow these terrorists to attack us and not fight back? Terrorists aren't required to keep their "arses" on their own ground?

you have obviously not seen the data on the prevented terrorist attacks because of our SELF-DEFENSE, it is not a crusade, and you have no facts to prove that it is.

anybody that believes they're very well informed by listening to the media . . .ANYWHERE are truly in the dark or in denial, one of the two, or probably both.

Todd

[egexgfczc]

Question, we should allow these terrorists to attack us and not fight back? Terrorists aren't required to keep their arses on their own ground?

you have obviously not seen the dadta on the prevented terrorist attacks because of our SELF-DEFENSE, it is not a crusade, and you have no facts to prove that it is.

anybody that believes they're very well informed by listening to the media . . .ANYWHERE are truly in the dark or in denial, one of the two, or probably both.

Todd

Invasion does not include in self-defence. Neither does occupation which increaces the numbers of those willing to fight against you.
What is Terrorists own ground? There is no such thing.

the bolded part.. Amm did you just shot your own leg?

[usacomm]

Invasion does not include in self-defence. Neither does occupation which increaces the numbers of those willing to fight against you.
What is Terrorists own ground? There is no such thing.

the bolded part.. Amm did you just shot your own leg?

So, all terroists are "stateless"? Because we were attacked we are not allowed to retaliate? So we're just supposed to sit back and take it? The number of terrorists are decreasing because of the defense we're showing for our country. We took out a threat with Saddam, he was a threat, it has been proven that he had WMD and was threatening us with them, and he was threatening our allies. So are we supposed to allow people like that to take over and rule? nonsense. Your posts are making no sense.

shot my own leg?

ok, if you think so. . . . whatever

Todd

[tooratrack]

We need to maintain current spending levels, but we need to step back from our overly-belligerent stance. We need to focus on stabilizing our currently-occupied territory, so that we can retreat honorably and securely in the fact that we have allies in the region.

We also need to really make better use of diplomacy and apply our forces more strategically. Just because we can invade, secure, and occupy a region on our own-- or with support from a limited number of allies-- does not mean that it is a good idea to do so. If we'd kept making our case with Iraq, it would've taken longer, but we could have gone in with European support-- which would leave us with much better options for dealing with Iran.

Specialized assault units, drones, and high-tech are all well and good, but when it comes down to it, these things can only work in support of eventual infantry occupation. The kinds of anti-terror operations we're working on requrie boots on the ground.

[favwebbb]

So, all terroists are "stateless"? Because we were attacked we are not allowed to retaliate? So we're just supposed to sit back and take it? The number of terrorists are decreasing because of the defense we're showing for our country.
We took out a threat with Saddam, he was a threat, it has been proven that he had WMD and was threatening us with them,
and he was threatening our allies. So are we supposed to allow people like that to take over and rule? nonsense. Your posts are making no sense.

shot my own leg?

ok, if you think so. . . . whatever

Todd

Yes. Terrorists have no nation, "state" as you presented it, thus it is difficult to assault terrorists at home.
What defence have you shown to your country, other than huge amounts of money to your army? What defences?
Saddams WMDs. How many times this has been presented? I still see no weapons. How could have Iraq strike at you?
Why are leaders of all other nations allowing your leader to rule? Because it is his to rule, although in both times the election was more than shaky. U.S. has zero right to attack and invade independent nations.

[Dreqsqse]

What do you all think should be done with the military?

Major cutdowns most of it is totally unnessecary anyway. We have done that in my country with great succes after the collaps of the USSR, and still we can effort to help out in Iraq and Afghanistan with lot of military pressence.

The US army is already 10 times more superior than all its potential enemies put together, and still a lot of paranoid unrealistic morons wants to increase military expences.

[kictainiSot]

Yes. Terrorists have no nation, "state" as you presented it, thus it is difficult to assault terrorists at home.
What defence have you shown to your country, other than huge amounts of money to your army? What defences?
Saddams WMDs. How many times this has been presented? I still see no weapons. How could have Iraq strike at you?
Why are leaders of all other nations allowing your leader to rule? Because it is his to rule, although in both times the election was more than shaky. U.S. has zero right to attack and invade independent nations.

Oh, so i was lied to when we were told they were in Afghanistan? Ok, I see your logic now, or lack there of. And yes, Iraq had WMD's, it has been proven that they were moved to Syria.

How many times do I have to say it, there have been numerous attacks prevented since we started defending ourselves.

The elections have never been shaky here. The 2000 election was close, but not shaky in the least bit, the 2004 election was very decisive, how does that constitute being shaky?

You should go on and keep believing everything you're spoon-fed by the news media all across the world, funny, they never report wll the good things that are happening in Iraq. I know you're going to tell me that there are no good things happening, but it's been well documented by numerous reliable sources the good things that are happening. So I'll tell you why you never hear of the good things, it's because the good things that are taking place in Iraq would trump the bad things that are being reported, and since many such as yourself are invested in the defeat of the U.S. all you want to hear is doom and gloom.

I'm done with this thread because it's going nowhere.

Todd

[GeraldCortis]

I think expanding territory is crucial for us. We need to remain competitive with Canada in putting troops in the Arctic zones and we do need to increase spending on the military. We need to put more effort in the way of giving insetives for people to join the armed services as a draft is out of the question. We need to increase our arms capacity, develop Bunker Buster missles, we need to increase the amount of bases we have around the world and make our military more mobile and actively available for re-deployment. Basically Don Rumsfeld's job of transforming the military from a cold war style force to fighting the GWOT needs to be followed through. We don't need huge artillery and combat divisions anymore but we need smaller units and more of those smaller units. We need more aggressive technology and we could do with encouraging more production of Bio Chemical weapons. Most of this would have to remain classified but it is neccessary.

[Rellshare]

I think expanding territory is crucial for us. We need to remain competitive with Canada in putting troops in the Arctic zones and we do need to increase spending on the military. We need to put more effort in the way of giving insetives for people to join the armed services as a draft is out of the question. We need to increase our arms capacity, develop Bunker Buster missles, we need to increase the amount of bases we have around the world and make our military more mobile and actively available for re-deployment. Basically Don Rumsfeld's job of transforming the military from a cold war style force to fighting the GWOT needs to be followed through. We don't need huge artillery and combat divisions anymore but we need smaller units and more of those smaller units. We need more aggressive technology and we could do with encouraging more production of Bio Chemical weapons. Most of this would have to remain classified but it is neccessary.

Wow, Is your last name Bonepart or hannibal??

[FliveGell]

What do you all think should be done with the military?

Should maintain current levels but be smatter at which technologies should be invested for future aircraft, ships, equipment, training, etc. The draft is a definite negative aspect no matter what the spending level is.

[Alulursuifold]

What do you all think should be done with the military?

Choice: Other

The power of this military must be taken away from this government. If they want to use the CIA, FBI or any other murder crew then have at it. If they want to kill enlisted kids for profit then we as a free people must have a national plebiscite for any and all foreign soil imperialist action. From now on, (all) War Profiteers, and banking institutions will subsidize their own wars, and not a penny will be stolen (laundered) from the citizenry. Also the Income Tax will be abolished and nothing need replace it....

[iqxdvjgmat]

Oh, so i was lied to when we were told they were in Afghanistan? Ok, I see your logic now, or lack there of. And yes, Iraq had WMD's, it has been proven that they were moved to Syria.

How many times do I have to say it, there have been numerous attacks prevented since we started defending ourselves.

The elections have never been shaky here. The 2000 election was close, but not shaky in the least bit, the 2004 election was very decisive, how does that constitute being shaky?

You should go on and keep believing everything you're spoon-fed by the news media all across the world, funny, they never report wll the good things that are happening in Iraq. I know you're going to tell me that there are no good things happening, but it's been well documented by numerous reliable sources the good things that are happening. So I'll tell you why you never hear of the good things, it's because the good things that are taking place in Iraq would trump the bad things that are being reported, and since many such as yourself are invested in the defeat of the U.S. all you want to hear is doom and gloom.

I'm done with this thread because it's going nowhere.
Todd

Who were in Afganistan? Ah, the Taleban.. U.S. backed rebels, who were replaced by another U.S. based rebels after you discovered what you had done. Taleban were in control of the torn nation, and that in your book marks them as Terrorists? What are your views on the Tsecheni fighters if I may ask?

OK, so now Syria has the terrible WMDs.. OK then. It makes all sence now, I mean sure. You invade Iran, because the WMDs are in Syria. MMhm.

In the land of Fox, I don't think you are in any position to tell me what is spoon fed news media. Look, in case you do not know.. we here are quite free to look the news ourselves if we want to.

Getting your troops back home is still not a defeat. It is called normal. U.S. army-->U.S. soil. Easy enough?

Going nowhere, like your troops.

[fuslssdfaa]

Wow, Is your last name Bonepart or hannibal??

I'll say Hannibal as i don't like the French too much.

[Pharmaciest2007]

Who were in Afganistan? Ah, the Taleban.. U.S. backed rebels, who were replaced by another U.S. based rebels after you discovered what you had done. Taleban were in control of the torn nation, and that in your book marks them as Terrorists? What are your views on the Tsecheni fighters if I may ask?

OK, so now Syria has the terrible WMDs.. OK then. It makes all sence now, I mean sure. You invade Iran, because the WMDs are in Syria. MMhm.

In the land of Fox, I don't think you are in any position to tell me what is spoon fed news media. Look, in case you do not know.. we here are quite free to look the news ourselves if we want to.

Getting your troops back home is still not a defeat. It is called normal. U.S. army-->U.S. soil. Easy enough?

Going nowhere, like your troops.

They were not US backed rebels. You are confusing the Mujuhadeen with the Taliban. The Northern Alliance, who aslo also Mujuhadeen, were the rightful government of Afganistan after the Soviet Union departed and created the goddamn mess in the first place. Most of the Taliban were never members of the famed Afgan resistance and if you want to educate your ignorance, go to this web site.

[tramadolwithall]

They were not US backed rebels. You are confusing the Mujuhadeen with the Taliban. The Northern Alliance, who aslo also Mujuhadeen, were the rightful government of Afganistan after the Soviet Union departed and created the goddamn mess in the first place. Most of the Taliban were never members of the famed Afgan resistance and if you want to educate your ignorance, go to this web site.

The U.S.G. created the mess by giving Osama and his Mujadeen over 20 billion in arms. The U.S.G. wanted to make sure that the USSR was destroyed, and if it weren't for the fall of the USSR then 911 would've never happened. Who do you think was stopping the now invasions into Central Asia? If you guessed the other fallen Russian Empire, you'd be 100% correct. Now with them out of the way, all that was left to take out to advance their imperialistic plans, was Sadam. The Mujadeen became the Taliban, and the now al-Qaeda .

Take a look at the facts Jack:

http://eugenichegemony.blogspot.com/...bin-laden.html