1 ok, so uh Saddam ordered bin laden to attack u.s.

i totally believe you. i sure am glad that bastard is dead.

2 I guess Bush shouldn't have listened to the likes of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore who all made speeches linking Saddam to al Qaeda and tied them all into producing WMDs in Iraq.  Hillary Clinton was still making this speech as late as 2002 when she voted for the war in Iraq using the same intelligence information her husband had used.  Why exactly was this true when the Democrats said it in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 but not in 2003 and later?  Could it be that they wanted to deny the truth as a political ploy to regain the White House.  Why was there only 1 Democrat who dared to speak the truth and they kicked him out of the party?  Little wonder why I left the Democratic party in 2000, I can't stand weak willed politicians who put political power over national security.

3
Bluto at this point most Americans have stopped even thinking about all the lies that got us into Iraq, or the mistakes that have put us up to our necks in that Iraqi sandpit.. Most Americans just want a way out now. The last polsl I saw just show the same continuing trends with only 10% now in favor of sending anymore troops.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm The American people are looking for ways for our troops to leave Iraq not reasons to justify having sent the troops over there 4 years ago.

4 John Ryan, you're still an idiot troll.
Just thought I'd clue your dumbass in.

5 John Ryan, you're still an idiot troll.
Just thought I'd clue your dumbass in.

that was constructive.

6

John Ryan supported the Dred Scott decision, too.

Jake: much like yourself, John Ryan IS an idiot troll who comes here only to disrupt thoughtful debate. His favorite weapons are the red herring and the straw man, and he never responds when called on them.

I guess you'd have to call him a typical Democrat.

7 John,

facts aren't based on popularity polls.

8

Jake, stop sniffing the glue, and try using it to put together a rational arguement. You don't have enough glue for the cheapass tactic you used in comment number one.  Mussolini didn't ask Hitler for permission when he did stuff, and neither did Hideki Tojo. But by golly, they were all at war with the USA, and did share intelligence and resources where they could.

Here is an example of the difficulty in communications the Axis suffered. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_submarine_I-52

In any case, it should be noted that if one memeber of an alliance can do something that the other members can't they can try to help improve each other's capabilities. For example, Japan didn't have radar, but the Germans did. so they gave the technology to the Japanese, who did almost nothing with it. Still ...

If AlQaeda can get materials to make a nuke, and Saddam has the missiles to put them on, and since they were in communication ... it seems like a really good idea to take Saddam out before any of this happens. Don't you think? I mean really ...! Don't you think???

After the war got hot, they could still exchange resources to some degree. Besides, it was freakin Saddam!!! Quit crying for him already, will ya??? JEEZE!!!

In any case any eleven year old can learn about the difficulties of making a military alliance work, by just playing that old board game "Axis, And Allies". You might try to get a copy for yourself. Then you will also learn the importance of having a strong economy, and keeping material resources out of enemy hands. I know it's a lot to ask for a lefty, but you really should get SOME education about geopolitics. And realize that John is in denial.

USA, all the way!

9 If todays Democrats had been in charge in 1945 instead of FDR they would have surrendered to Japan instead of getting bogged down at Iwo Jima.  Or better yet they would have taken a poll to decide what to do.  Why anyone would vote for such spineless drones is anyones guess.  Clinton ranted and railed against Saddam and Osama but wouldn't do a damn thing about them.

10 From my experince with lefturds, and indeed most people, is that their
little sheep brains can only think little sheep thoughts, and no more
than one idea at a time can fit into their little sheep skulls, so that
whenever conflicting information is presented, the programmed response
is to bleat madly until the threat has passed; and while bleating, all
thoughts whatsoever are driven from their little sheep minds, which
then reset to default mode, and it's back to little sheep thoughts
again, punctuated by the occasional random bleat. In this world, you're
either a predator or you're livestock; there is no in-between.
Unfortunately, most Americans have become livestock.

11 John Lyin & Jakeass:


Is the Saddam Al Qaeda connection one of "the lies that got us into Iraq?" (Italics mine.)


How about the 800 tons of uranium and the functioning nuclear weapons program found? Were those the WMD he wasn't developing?


I wonder how many jihadis were killed by American troops while I wrote this? I guess the American military is still stronger than your moon deity.

12 "In this world, you're
either a predator or you're livestock; there is no in-between.
Unfortunately, most Americans have become livestock."

whoo. i love your ideals.... sound pretty sociopathic to me. also, "black and white" comes to mind. but whatever, you're the boss. baah.

"How about the 800 tons of uranium and the functioning nuclear weapons program found? Were those the WMD he wasn't developing?"

second time you've said that. source please. googling it and all i get is links to places  that claim the u.s. has been using depleted uranium weapons on iraq.

"I wonder how many jihadis were killed by American troops while I wrote
this? I guess the American military is still stronger than your moon
deity."

14 civilians, 2 jihadis.

13 Jakeass:


Is the Saddam Al Qaeda connection one of "the lies that got America (not you,) into Iraq?" Well? Was it?


Do your own research.


2 jihadis my ass, and any civilians killed were killed by jihadis. The jihadis are civilians too, by the way.


Moron.

14 so, if you make an argument, but dont bother to source it, or back it up with quotes, then what is your argument? an opinion. however, you misconstrue your opinion as a fact. this is an junior high school mistake and a shallow conversational strategy.

here is a link backing my statement up:
http://www.educationoasis.com/curriculum/LP/LA/fact_opinions_ads.htm

here is a quote from the page, in case you don't feel like reading it.

-A fact is a statement that can be proven true.

-The Empire State Building is 1,250 feet tall.

- Michael Jordon was born on February 17, 1963

-An opinion expresses someone's belief, feeling, view, idea, or judgment about something or someone.

-The puppy is cute.

-Mercedes makes the best car in the world.

so as thus, until you provide sources or citations, or even quotes, i will dismiss your argument out of hand.

15 Jakeass:


I can link to sites that say the moon landing was faked, or that 911 was a BusHitlerBurton job. Does that make those statements factual?


Are you trying to say no uranium was found in Iraq, or that Saddam's head nuclear weapons physicist built his own nuclear centrifuge for kicks?

Your locical fallacies don't explain if the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection was a "lie" that got America into Iraq, or "prove" that bloodthirsty Coalition troops killed 14 innocent Iraqi "civilians" yesterday. Your ignorance and dishonesty are your own responsibility.