# Iraq and terrorists



## sevendogs (Sep 19, 2003)

Iraq was Saddam country. Now, Iraquis are still better off then under Saddam. However, they die is big numbers daily. Iraq is not the place where Osama bin Laden's terrorists were. Iraq is where they came to compete with Americans for power and kill as many Americans as they can. This is a money pit for our country. No cheap gas and no democracy in Iraq. Our almost evangelical government is inept in foreign politics and military strategy. These are civilians who started and mismanage this war. They will find their unfamous end in this war. Impeach Bush or at least vote for Democrats next time. Republicans have been elected by dark forces of our country, such as folcs listening to Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh and alike. They are a brainwashed crowd.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

Come on Seven! We need to get over the post election bitterness. Brainwashed? Give me a break. Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson "brainwashing" all of us innocent dupes into voting for George Bush? You need to look at how "Big Media" like CBS tried to swing the vote toward Kerry with their bogus national guard letters and memos about George Bush. You won't get an argument from me that Iraq is an expensive venture. However, it is a task that needed to be addressed because of the inept attempts by the vaunted UN to keep Saddam in line in the first place. In light of 9/11, I for one was not willing to take the chance that Saddam didn't have WMDs laying around. Expensive venture, yes. Was it worth the risk? Most definately. I'm sure you will reply with the argument on the number of soldiers we have lost in this campaign. Yes, we have lost 1000 plus good men, but I will bet a great majority of the troops we have over there understand, and support, the gravity of this situation better than the both of us. :sniper:


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Yup. :roll: 51% of America Are just poor stupid Yokles that dont know any better than to beliee what Rush tells them. they are just to poor and dumb to think for themselves. Lucky we have you smart, enlightened, genious Democrats to try and bring us back to the light! uke:


----------



## racer66 (Oct 6, 2003)

Yikes, out to lunch there seven. :eyeroll:


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

I think Seven just likes to rattle our cages a bit with his comments just to get us going.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> Yup. :roll: 51% of America Are just poor stupid Yokles that dont know any better than to beliee what Rush tells them. they are just to poor and dumb to think for themselves. Lucky we have you smart, enlightened, genious Democrats to try and bring us back to the light! uke:


I don' think so. I think about 15%, maybe 20 are the yokels. The rest were people who were scared into voting for Bush.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Tigre, its ok. we dont need the excuses anymore. just because America Disagrees with you doesnt mean you can say things like that. Honestly. Even the "Yokles" arnt stupid anough to believe the Rummy would invade the U.S.A and stage a coupe. thats so oulandishly stupid its not funy.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

When did I ever imply that something like that happened? I'm not sure how you took it that the government would attack us. The people were scared into believing that without Bush, we would be attacked again and it would be handled poorly, though it was an unfounded belief.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You didn't say it directly MT, but you did your best to imply that , who was it again Cheney, would attack America if Kerry won. You have wanted us to believe many outlandish statements that you have made. Even when no one agrees, you go on like a parrot, Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied, when all the time you must know that isn't true. Bush thought the same thing as Kerry, England, Russia , etc. Somehow everyone had bad intelligence, but you don't want to admit it. You want to keep on with Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied.

When I talked about Kerry I have talked about what I heard with my own ears. I watched on TV as Kerry testified before congress. Where is the evidence that makes you so sure Bush lied? You don't have it.

There is a term I have heard recently that I am not sure of. What is a blog (spelling?)? I heard them on the news talking about their activities before the election. Can anyone give me a definition?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"You didn't say it directly MT, but you did your best to imply that , who was it again Cheney, would attack America if Kerry won."

It is amazing that you can blatently lie about my comments and these people will sop it up like cornbread in gravy. The statement was that Cheney warned of another attack by the taliban if Kerry was elected, at which time a link to the onion was posted, making fun of Cheney's original statement. You however flew threw mine, read what you pleased, and somehow got that I said Cheney would attack us. Now I am being accused of implying that the US plotting 9/11 and a future attack. Raw putrid lies and no one will say a word, after all it supports their cause. uke: Good republican morals my eye.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I couldn't even remember who it was MT, but my point is, even though these things are silly and not true you like to throw them out there. Now if you had given me any indication that you knew them to be satire I would not think you wanted readers to believe it. Normally I would know someone was joking, but after the Bush was wired debate I was unsure of how silly things could be and you would still believe them. I came to the conclusion that it was believable to you because you want so badly to believe everything Bush and Cheney do is stupid and that everything John and John do is genius. Your rhetoric clouds our vision of you, and your unwillingness to believe the abundantly obvious also clouds our ability to judge your argument.


----------



## jamartinmg2 (Oct 7, 2004)

MT... at least I have not heard you assert that Bush somehow stole the election. I think there is hope for you yet!


----------



## Remmi_&amp;_I (Dec 2, 2003)

He won by millions of votes! I think the people finally saw the light on Kerry !


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"Your rhetoric clouds our vision of you, and your unwillingness to believe the abundantly obvious also clouds our ability to judge your argument."

This is true on both sides of the equation, plainsman.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> "Your rhetoric clouds our vision of you, and your unwillingness to believe the abundantly obvious also clouds our ability to judge your argument."
> 
> This is true on both sides of the equation, plainsman.


I fully realize that MT. I also realize that we both think we have drawn a reasonable line between rhetoric and reality. I try not to use satire, because I know the liberals are waiting to point out that I actually believe it. It is tempting, and I have failed at times to leave it alone. It is when you repeat or defend what we see as rhetoric that leads us to think you really believe it.

Well, time to load the rifles into the pickup. Two skin heads last week-end and two to go. The wind isn't 20+ miles an hour like last week-end so we will not have to restrict the distance we shoot nearly as much as last week-end. Hope those of you reading this have as good a week-end as I think I'm going to have.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

MT, yes, either you or one of your Uber Liberal buddies said that Cheynee would attack America if kerry won, and were using that as an exuse why "people were scared into votng Bush" and that if the election had been "fair" Kerry would have won. Dont deny things. i tend to rememer things my oponents have said, even years ago in some cases. dont play with me, and stop making excuses! THE RACE WAS FAIR, AND KERRY LOST IN A FAIR RACE. QUIT WHINING.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> MT, yes, either you or one of your Uber Liberal buddies said that Cheynee would attack America if kerry won, and were using that as an exuse why "people were scared into votng Bush" and that if the election had been "fair" Kerry would have won. Dont deny things. i tend to rememer things my oponents have said, even years ago in some cases. dont play with me, and stop making excuses! THE RACE WAS FAIR, AND KERRY LOST IN A FAIR RACE. QUIT WHINING.


Again you continue with the lies. The link to the onion (a satire site) was not meant to be taken for real. You as well as your mega conservative buddies were able to twist it into being a real statement. If you would like to look up the thread be my guest. In reality cheney said that if kerry was elected, there would be a terrorist attack in a major city (a real statement). I said that this was a scare tactic, and you were able to put two and two together to get five. If you are going to point out my contradictions, make sure they are real first.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"You as well as your mega conservative buddies were able to twist it into being a real statement"

Actualy MT, i never saw that thread. i just took what you said...that Ceney was trying to "scare people" and the rest of you people talking about "cheney invading America". i said it was rediculous from the start. dont try and pretend i believed it. I never said it was valid, and i told eveoryone it was rediculous Dems AND Reps. This is a moot point. as for lies, there wernt any. i decieved noone, nor did i submit false statements.. unless you consider osts to the tune of " thats rediculous" to mean i was trying to make people believe it? Take that to your "Mega" liberal buddies.

How exactly did i "twist it into a real statement"?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

"i said it was rediculous from the start. dont try and pretend i believed it. I never said it was valid, and i told eveoryone it was rediculous Dems AND Reps."

You stated that I had something which I had not, and then accused me of denying it, all of this without ever having seen the thread.

You seem to become more rediculous with each passing day trooper, first calling me ignorant and saying that it is in my defence, and now putting words in my mouth and accusing me of denying it.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

"and then accused me of denying it"

You do realize that i said EITHER you or one of the other Liberals?

And also, i called you inexperienced, not ignorant. However neither of tose are insults. you need to calm down.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

mr.trooper said:


> "and then accused me of denying it"
> 
> You do realize that i said EITHER you or one of the other Liberals?
> 
> And also, i called you inexperienced, not ignorant. However neither of tose are insults. you need to calm down.


None of us liberals stated it as fact, it was meant to be taken as satire, hell it was even stated when the website was posted that it was a satire site.

You have stuck your foot in your mouth trooper, calling someone ignorant/inexperienced is not done in their defense. This situation is much like Iraq, admit your mistake and you may be able to regain some of your previous credibility.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Ok. I jumped to conclusions on hear-say.

And as fr the other mater: fine whatever. im not ging to say anything else.


----------

