Bush or Kerry?
#61
RE: Bush or Kerry?
ORIGINAL: oldnews
People,
if you workfor a living and don't enjoy paying taxes then you have to vote for W. Remeber millions of people on welfare count on you to get up every morning and punch the timeclock so they can collect a check from uncle sam.
People,
if you workfor a living and don't enjoy paying taxes then you have to vote for W. Remeber millions of people on welfare count on you to get up every morning and punch the timeclock so they can collect a check from uncle sam.
#63
RE: Bush or Kerry?
So, do you advocate the invasion of any country that is primarily Muslim, or should we go ahead and include Hindu and Buddhist nations, as well? Hail Milosevic, right? Hopefully, the terrorists won't get us while on this Holy quest... Crusades, anyone?
#65
RE: Bush or Kerry?
No, I advocate attending to the actual terrorists who perpetrated that attack, rather than wasting time invading random Muslim countries who played no part. Why is that idiot in the White House wasting an incredible amount of resources in Iraq, rather than hunting down terrorists in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan, among others? You know -- the folks that actually played a part, rather than those who only cheered?
#67
RE: Bush or Kerry?
We're not wasting time in Iraq. Iraq was a haven for Muslim terrorists and a source of monetary support. Now it's a killing field for Muslim mutts.
We agree about one thing. I, too, want to take it to the enemy and kick their *** no matter what country they hide behind. Where we disagree is that I prefer to do it before they attack us.
Iraq has conveniently become a magnet for Islamofacist members of the "religion of peace" murdering maniacs. We don't need to invade other countries if they all come to us in the cesspool they want to perpetuate in Iraq. We can kill them all in Iraq. What difference does it make?
We agree about one thing. I, too, want to take it to the enemy and kick their *** no matter what country they hide behind. Where we disagree is that I prefer to do it before they attack us.
Iraq has conveniently become a magnet for Islamofacist members of the "religion of peace" murdering maniacs. We don't need to invade other countries if they all come to us in the cesspool they want to perpetuate in Iraq. We can kill them all in Iraq. What difference does it make?
#68
RE: Bush or Kerry?
Iraq was not a haven for Muslim terrorists. The Islamofascists couldn't stand Saddam, nor he them. The only verifiable terrorist link to Saddam beyond his own borders was a stipend he offered to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. I don't mean to sound callous, but that's not our problem. All we did was throw a rock at a hornets nest. Yes, there are terrorists being drawn to the region now, but not the ones we want. Do you really think someone with the brains to orchestrate 9/11 is hanging out in Fallujah or Baghdad? In the long run, our presence in Iraq is likely to create more terrorists then we take out. This was sheer idiocy from day one -- it was obvious then, and it's more obvious now.
#69
RE: Bush or Kerry?
Oh, right. Iraq was a peaceful paradise with a benevolent leader before we invaded. Saddam never conspired with terrorists. He never financed or accommodated their training. All he ever did was eat dates while sitting on his veranda reading poetry and his wives went shopping. He was an innocent victim of the US war machine. Boo. Friggin'. Hoo. Um, except for paying to kill some Jews which you seem to think is okay.
Big dogs, little dogs. Just semantics that mean little today. They're all dead Muslim meat. The attacks on 9/11 were not the first Muslim terrorist attacks against the US. They were not the only attacks. They were not the last attacks. You could have what amounts to half an argument if the 9/11 attacks were the all of it and the end of it all. Iraq is not the only front in the war against terror.
And attacks on Israel are our business. They are an ally. Why do you think they didn't attack Iraq in retaliation for Iraqi SCUD missile attacks in '91?
Big dogs, little dogs. Just semantics that mean little today. They're all dead Muslim meat. The attacks on 9/11 were not the first Muslim terrorist attacks against the US. They were not the only attacks. They were not the last attacks. You could have what amounts to half an argument if the 9/11 attacks were the all of it and the end of it all. Iraq is not the only front in the war against terror.
And attacks on Israel are our business. They are an ally. Why do you think they didn't attack Iraq in retaliation for Iraqi SCUD missile attacks in '91?
#70
RE: Bush or Kerry?
You know, we can probably come up with some lame excuse to attack just about any country on Earth if we try hard enough, but the fact is that for the scant few years prior to our invasion, Iraq was essentially minding its own business, which is more than I'd say for some of it's terrorist-aligned neighbors. It may have been a sh!thole before, but it's our sh!thole now, and I resent paying for it for no good reason. Iraq didn't need to be a front on the war on terror at all -- we created that situation, and we're going to have to live with it for a long time to come. All GW had to do was listen to Colin Powell and his daddy instead of the crowd he chose.