Free speech is a beautiful thing.

Skaff

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Posts
318
Total Time
5000+
Seafeye said:
My grandfather was in WW2, My Father in Egypt and Me in Cyprus. We

were fighting for lots of things...One was "Freedom of Speech". This gives

me the privilege to say the War in Iraq is not about that.

Bring home my friends and family.

Stop killing the Iraqis.



We have earned the privilege to say what we want.

George you are wrong about Iraq... Be a man and step down.

Notice his current position in his profile.
 

Prop2Jet

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Posts
1,435
Total Time
Alot
Those that are most informed about the Presidential decisions are those that have little to say and little to complain about since they truely understand the gravity of our cause in this time of war.
 
T

Traumahawk

mamba20 said:
George is wrong anyway you slice it.


Of course he is.


There was as much of a tie between Sadam and Al Qaeda as there was between dog sh!t and oranges.

They don't like each other, they stand for different things, they have no interest in one another.

Also, zero weapons. ZERO WMD.
N. Korea...different story.
Iran...different story.

I used to think, hey, don't bullsh!t Americans, they are smart. But when you have people that actually believe we are fighting for freedom in Iraq...hehe...wow. It's amazing.

By the way for all of the Conservatives out there, as you have seen several Republicans admit, it doesn't make you a "liberal" and a "pro-abortionist" or a "leftist" when you come out and say, hey, this guy we elected isn't exactly acting in the BEST interest for Americans. I thought he would, I was wrong.

You can still have your beliefs and political orientation, even after you admit the President is a numb-skull. The past 5 years have been painful to watch. Even more so for people who's children are coming home in Bodybags over this sick excuse for the war on terror.

What we have now is a bath-house for terrorists in Iraq, hundreds and hundreds of dead soldiers and civilians on both the American front, as well as other nations and Iraqis. Oh and this just in, over 50 dead in London. Yep, big help this Iraq war. ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE MIDDLE EAST, ANYWHERE!!!!...would have made more sense than Iraq.

Makes me sick. It's worse when people buy it, in fear of being considered a traitor or un-American. Think about why that is. Brainwashing at it's best.

T-hawk
 
Last edited:

PropsR4Boats

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Posts
121
Total Time
4gs
All Bros and Ho#s
I guess you guys know it all. Have you been there...pre/post 11th? That’s why you picked this great career field. Tell me, since you know how it all works so well. Who's the next pilot group that will be on the streets? Or better yet, tell me where the next terrorist attacks will take place.
 

crashpad

"Why do you come to me?"
Joined
Jun 11, 2003
Posts
1,354
Total Time
+13000
I'm not for leaving Iraq until we've secured a direct pipeline of the their oil to the US and you squeemish little wussies are wearing white paper hats while pumping my gas.
 

Smacktard

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
967
Total Time
4000+
Traumahawk said:
There was as much of a tie between Sadam and Al Qaeda as there was between dog sh!t and oranges.

Also, zero weapons. ZERO WMD.


Factually incorrect.
 
Last edited:
T

Traumahawk

Thats funny, the 911 commission concluded no weapons, and no Al Qaeda link.

But of course, what would that commission know. I mean, who are they anyways??

Enlighten us, What have you found over there..uh..."Smacktard" that some of the worlds finest didn't?? Please...perhaps you can explain the link that not even the President can find a basis for as he chants the mantra over and over again.
 

mamba20

Do what now?
Joined
Nov 27, 2004
Posts
1,030
Total Time
000000
The simple FACT of the matter is that the Bush administration has continualy lied to the American public. And we still have three years left. God help us!
 

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
Traumahawk said:
Thats funny, the 911 commission concluded no weapons, and no Al Qaeda link.

Who gave Howie "the scream-meister" Dean a flightinfo account?

Anyway, your statement is, as Smacktard said, factually incorrect. The 9/11 commission concluded that there was no link between Saddam and 9/11. The commission did not say that there was no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda. The truth is, there were several terrorist training camps for Al Qaeda located within Iraq. Terrorists frequently came to Iraq for medical treatment also because they knew they would get no hassle from Saddam.
 
T

Traumahawk

There are also terrorist camps in a handful of other countries...including ours. Don't try to use a small simple fact to turn the attention away from the big picture.

That WASN'T the basis for going to war. The basis was WMD. There have been none found. They will find none.
 

SWAnnabee

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Posts
241
Total Time
1900
Traumahawk said:
Thats funny, the 911 commission concluded no weapons, and no Al Qaeda link.

Directly from the 911 Commission Report;

"In March 1998, after Bin Ladens public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation went to Afganistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis."

Do a little research and you won't look so stupid.
 
Last edited:

PCL_128

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Posts
15,296
Total Time
5000+
Traumahawk said:
Don't try to use a small simple fact to turn the attention away from the big picture.

Oh, I'm sorry. I hate to let actual facts get in the way of your crazy liberal rantings. I guess I just forgot for a minute that pesky little things like facts aren't really important to the liberal agenda. I'll try to remember that in the future. :rolleyes:

That WASN'T the basis for going to war. The basis was WMD. There have been none found. They will find none.

The WMD are most likely in Syria, but that isn't really the point. The point is that there were many reasons for going to war in Iraq, not just WMD:

1. Remove a murderous dictator that was known for using chemical weapons for the systematic murder of his opponents
2. Remove a regime from power that was friendly to the terrorist groups that aim to destroy western culture
3. Fight the enemy somewhere other than the homeland
4. Begin a process that will change the basic culture in the Middle East and move it towards democracy

I could go on and on with reasons why this war is justified, but since you've already said that "small simple facts" aren't important to you, then I'm just wasting my time. I'll let you get back to your irrational hatred of Bush and the Republican party now.
 
T

Traumahawk

bozt45 said:
Do a little research and you won't look so stupid.

Read a little further....I'm talking less than a paragraph ya twit.


Pg. 83 of the 911 Commission's report.

"..But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

hehe...whoops...fogot to include that part didn't we?

Translation. No link..between 9/11 or Iraq. But just the other day the President was touting just that!!! And People are dying as we speak in a country we have absolutely NO business in at this time, especially not in the effort we have put forth.

Bush barely won both elections. In fact, he didn't have the popular vote the first time. And his approval ratings continue to fall. I think people support more of cleaning up the mess he made, rather than the laughable propaganda Bush lays out there as far as Iraq being about our freedom.

I think we have taken a HUGE step back by concentrating on Iraq instead of other interests, Sadam in power or not. We walked up and kicked a H3LL of a bee-hive.

T-hawk
 
Last edited:
T

Traumahawk

PCL_128 said:
The WMD are most likely in Syria, but that isn't really the point. The point is that there were many reasons for going to war in Iraq, not just WMD:

1. Remove a murderous dictator that was known for using chemical weapons for the systematic murder of his opponents
2. Remove a regime from power that was friendly to the terrorist groups that aim to destroy western culture
3. Fight the enemy somewhere other than the homeland
4. Begin a process that will change the basic culture in the Middle East and move it towards democracy

I could go on and on with reasons why this war is justified, but...

The Iraq war, what is it??! Well, it's a big blunder of falsely driven American support for stopping terror in the completely wrong place....but that's not important right now.....

Syria!?!? Doh...we were sooo close. When should we move in??

WMD not in Iraq but thats NOT IMPORTANT!!??? NOT IMPORTANT!!??
Tell that to the parents and friends and kin of hundreds, thousands, of Dead, shot, kidnapped, stabbed, exploded, critically injured people who were in Iraq because of that MAIN reason in the first place!!!

That was NUMBER ONE my friend, ONE on the priority of being in Iraq. Do you remember the speech the President gave?? Giving Sadam to the count of 3 to give up the weapons or else we would move in and find them by force???

Where was mid-east democracy in that speech??

Hey by the way....I like your secondary excuses for going to war, but um, nope, thats NOT why we went. Those are reasons Bush came up with after we came up with ZILCH, maybe even a nice little project if we didn't have bigger things on our plate. Terrorists, and how about problems on our homeland??

Spit up the Koolaid. You have forgotten the real WHY's in the first place. Time does that to you.

P.S. I don't HATE any party, I hate hypocracy. OUR president, often defines the word.

T-Hawk
 
Last edited:

SWAnnabee

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 21, 2003
Posts
241
Total Time
1900
Traumahawk said:
There was as much of a tie between Sadam and Al Qaeda as there was between dog sh!t and oranges.

They don't like each other, they stand for different things, they have no interest in one another.


"In February 1999, Allen proposed flying a U2 missioni over Afganistan to build a baseline of intelligence outside the area where the tribals had coverage. Clarke was nervous about such a mission because he continued to fear that Bin Laden might leave for someplace less accessable. He wrote to Deputy Natinoal Security Advisor Donald Kerrik that one reliable source reported Bin Laden's having met with Iraqi officials, who "may have offered him assylum." Other intelligence sources said that some Taliban leaders, though not mullah Omar, had urged Bin Laden to go to Iraq."

How you can argue that there is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda is beyond me.

Traumahawk said:
Read a little further....I'm talking less than a paragraph ya twit.


Pg. 83 of the 911 Commission's report.

"..But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

Read this VERRRRY CARRRREFULLLLY. "Operational relationship" is not the same as a financial relationship or harboring or providing safe haven. Same with the "developing or carrying out" any attacks. Why would Saddam need to help with eveloping or carrying out attacks. Bin Laden is perfectly capable of planning and carrying out his own plans. What Iraq DID provide was intelligence and financial and technical SUPPORT. Which is a "tie". Which is why your quoted statement above is WRONG. Which is my POINT.

Originally Posted by Traumahawk
There was as much of a tie between Sadam and Al Qaeda as there was between dog sh!t and oranges.

They don't like each other, they stand for different things, they have no interest in one another.


You, sir, are WRONG that "they don't like each other, they stand for different things,they have no interest in one another." They clearly do.
 
Last edited:

Smacktard

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 28, 2003
Posts
967
Total Time
4000+
bozt45 said:
Read this VERRRRY CARRRREFULLLLY. "Operational relationship" is not the same as a financial relationship or harboring or providing safe haven. Same with the "developing or carrying out" any attacks. Why would Saddam need to help with eveloping or carrying out attacks. Bin Laden is perfectly capable of planning and carrying out his own plans. What Iraq DID provide was intelligence and financial and technical SUPPORT. Which is a "tie". Which is why your quoted statement above is WRONG. Which is my POINT.

Don't even bother. Common sense won't work. Traumahawk is still to traumatized by 8 years of Bush to ever accept logic. They want the phone call from Saddam authorizing 9/11.
 
Top