 | |
Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at???
Toyota Discussions related to Toyota cars and trucks (alt.autos.toyota)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: OT Why investigate what we already looked at??? -
11-08-2005
, 11:34 PM
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 20:12:12 -0800, Learning Richard wrote: Hachiroku wrote: Congress has decided to look into the information it was given prior to approving a military action in Iraq. Why do they have to review the nformation? Because those fucking morons have spent half a trillion dollars so far, and have killed over 40,000 innocents and soldiers. Bush should be tried. And, uh, just wherre the hell have YOU been? Hmmmm?? |
Quote:
|
It was debated and decided and now that it's not popular we have to revisit it. |
entire case for war. I'm all ears. I never supported this war....
except for that evil side of me that wanted to see Bush go down in
flames. I predicted a quagmire from day one -- its documented!
Quote:
|
Vote them all out and get some people with brains that can do it right the first time... |
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 01:05:54 -0800, "Johnny Hageyama" hageyama (AT) hairdresser (DOT) net> wrote: Before the war, Hussein was already very weak and getting weaker and was in no position to wage war. He sure as hell is not now..... Great Job GWB!!! |
but also around the world. It's now far less ready to take on
potential problems, such as aggression by North Korea or China or the
collapse of the regimes of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and any of those
will make Iraq look like a Sunday picnic.
With Iraq we traded one madman who was under our control for tens of
thousands of madmen who are proving difficult to handle. Some of them
will create much bigger problems for us in the far future and not just
in Iraq.
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:51:37 GMT, ".dbu," <foolishlefties (AT) Zapem (DOT) com So you think had we invaded say Iran then all would be ok? We just picked the wrong country?? We are working on Iran as we speak.... |
Haven't you ever heard of biting off more than you can chew?
#24
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <t2f2n11tnnv5kt7e3thcp8s9skjdi36egl (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, dizzy <dizzy (AT) nospam (DOT) invalid> wrote: On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 09:51:37 GMT, ".dbu," <foolishlefties (AT) Zapem (DOT) com wrote: "Johnny Hageyama" <hageyama (AT) hairdresser (DOT) net> wrote: Your argument would make great sense if you substituted Iraq with North Korea or Iran. Iraq had WMD Funny, we were just fine with it when he was using those weapons against Iran... and saddam never hesitated to use it against even his own people. He harbored terrorists. Right-wing propaganda. What, he allowed a dozen in there overnight? Saddam's Iraq was NOT a friendly place for Muslim extremists. So you think had we invaded say Iran then all would be ok? We just picked the wrong country?? Dumbshit. Invading ANY single country, Iran or Iraq, would not have made things "all okay". The point is that invading Iraq could not have possibly solved our problems, and in fact was not even really the top priority for action. saddam housed abu nidal the big guy of terrorists. |
Quote:
|
saddam also used WMD on his own people. I''m not going to go thru the whole litany of saddam and WMD yet again again. Where in hell have you been diz, sleeping? |
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 21:37:40 -0800, "Johnny Hageyama" hageyama (AT) hairdresser (DOT) net> wrote: In other words, people who were told lies by the administration. NO LIES WERE TOLD...... |
#26
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 23:02:55 -0800, "Johnny Hageyama" hageyama (AT) hairdresser (DOT) net> wrote: He had already given up his WMDs years before the war started. That is totally not true! cite! |
Iraq.
Please cite a better authority to counter this.
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 23:11:20 -0800, "Johnny Hageyama" hageyama (AT) hairdresser (DOT) net> wrote: What is your solution, kill all the terrorists? Hell YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 23:02:55 -0800, "Johnny Hageyama" hageyama (AT) hairdresser (DOT) net> wrote: Now that sounds familiar. You sure you are who you say you are? Iran or N.Korea haven't taken over any neighboring countries lately. Neither did Iraq. It had been heavily confined by the U.S. and U.K. for 12 years before this war started. Oh? Liar..... Kuwait? Remember? |
or 12 years before the current Iraqi war began.
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 23:02:55 -0800, "Johnny Hageyama" hageyama (AT) hairdresser (DOT) net> wrote: He would not have been allowed to complete a nuclear weapon. First, the no-fly zones would be patrolled more aggressively, but if Hussein didn't get the message, then the entire country would have been bombed, possibly as a prelude to a land invasion. Hussein, not being an ideological dicator, would have caved on the threat. We know this because that is exactly what he did just before the current war, when he allowed weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Absolutly right! Thanks US Military and George W. Bush! |
George H.W. Bush, and Bill Clinton, and all three kept nuclear weapons
out of Hussein's hands.
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
On 8 Nov 2005 23:02:55 -0800, "Johnny Hageyama" hageyama (AT) hairdresser (DOT) net> wrote: This is why it's important to have experienced Middle East hands who can explain the difference between what foreign leaders say and what they'll actually do -- and why it's important for our leaders to listen to the wisest of those experts. Like the liberal controlled CIA? |
people or international centrists.
Quote:
|
you really need to get out a bit more... |
men. You know very well that organizations like the CIA exist because
intelligence needs to be analyzed and verified and can't depend solely
on the words of just a few people who may turn out to be highly
unreliable, such as "Curveball," -- hardly the Iraqi Pentkovsky.
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.