Republican Candidates

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Tarball
So with that definition, what Bush did in Iraq was not Terrorism?
Terrorism is the act of terror. Look it up in the dictionary.
Bombs kill indiscriminately, no matter who set them off or who drops them.
And there we go. So, in a nutshell, you consider our military terrorists.
I don't need to "look up" the definition. I freakin posted half a dozen already. That should more or less imply I have already looked it up.
Terrorism is attacking indiscriminately non-military targets. We are not, nor have we ever done that in Iraq.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Tarball
So with that definition, what Bush did in Iraq was not Terrorism?
Terrorism is the act of terror. Look it up in the dictionary.
Bombs kill indiscriminately, no matter who set them off or who drops them.
The difference is......the terrorists do not care who they hit and target civilians.
The only militray target they hit in 9/11 was the Pentagon.
So, you supported the "Bush terrorism" in Afgan but not in Iraq?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
There is a difference between spending money offensively vs spending defensively, get it?
Nope, I don't get it.
Please explain how money for fighters, tanks, armor, missiles etc. can be either Offensive or Defensive.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
There is a difference between spending money offensively vs spending defensively, get it?
Not really....your post claims if we spend money we will be attacked. Please explain the offensive vs defensive weapons of war.

never knew you could build and offensive vs defensive tank.

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by Tarball
SO, you support defending our nation? How..with water pistols? You do not want to spend money on the military...yet....you want to defend the nation?
it's hard to follow any consistent thought. How can you make this statement along with the others..then claim you support or supported two wars?
Your hatred for Bush is getting in the way of being consistent with comment/opinion.
No it isn't, defending our borders is fine, its a must... Problem is for some reason thru propaganda you think Iraq was a threat & that concept was proven wrong. But the likes of you keep pounding away at the misconceptions..

 

[stdreb27]

I'm dumbfounded. We went into iraq for oil. Actually to set up our own oil empire. There is a conspiracy, because the people Bush appointed supported going into iraq. Gosh darnit, if you had an opinion for going into iraq you are a conspiracist. Bush is a moron. And a documenary with Joe Wilson as an expert, a liberal partisan hack, is a legitamate source of information. wow, you are all over the place. oh I almost forgot, and the USA are a bunch of terrorists.
Sit down and logically think this through.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
No it isn't, defending our borders is fine, its a must... Problem is for some reason thru propaganda you think Iraq was a threat & that concept was proven wrong. But the likes of you keep pounding away at the misconceptions..

So them shooting at our airplanes was not a threat?
This is why the media is soo guilty. They put out these rediculous claims, that after a few weeks gets sorted out, and put into context, but people just hear the first part, it shapes their opinion. Then they get so set in their ways when not so common sense slaps them in the face they are so set in their misguilded ways they won't change.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
No it isn't, defending our borders is fine, its a must...
So how were we defending our borders when we went into Iraq the first time or when we attacked Afghanistan? (both wars you said you supported)

 

[tarball]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Nope, I don't get it.
Please explain how money for fighters, tanks, armor, missiles etc. can be either Offensive or Defensive.
Using a weapon to defend our boarders while being attacked is just. Using them offensively is unjust. Its called morality.
If I don't like someone or mistrust an individual. But they haven't used aggression against my person. Do i have the right to attack them?

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by ScubaDoo
No it isn't, defending our borders is fine, its a must... Problem is for some reason thru propaganda you think Iraq was a threat & that concept was proven wrong. But the likes of you keep pounding away at the misconceptions..

You posted that spending money for the militray will lead to war and attack.
Under your theory..there is no need to spend a penny becuase we will be left alone.
Now you are saying, we need money to defend our baorders.....but yet, if we do not spend we will not be attacked..so why spend?
I'm simply trying to follow the logic or lack thereof.
Now, it appears it is your position that we somehow can only spend on defensive weapons and this is okay. Can you please define these weapons?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Using a weapon to defend our boarders while being attacked is just. Using them offensively is unjust. Its called morality....
So then answer this:
So how were we defending our borders when we went into Iraq the first time or when we attacked Afghanistan? (both wars you said you supported)

 

[tarball]

Its been real & its been fun. but, All I can say for now is.
Good night.....

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Using a weapon to defend our boarders while being attacked is just. Using them offensively is unjust. Its called morality.
If I don't like someone or mistrust an individual. But they haven't used aggression against my person. Do i have the right to attack them?
Last I checked history, Iraq invaded Kuwait...and that lead to a war you suppoted?
Goodness, I realize your haterd for Bush is deep but now you are really contradicting your positions with almost every post.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by tarball
Its been real & its been fun. but, All I can say for now is.
Good night.....

Cutting and running?

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by Tarball
Its been real & its been fun. but, All I can say for now is.
Good night.....

Sleep good knowing the war on terror is keeping you safe.
I realize now you are simply a Bush hater. That's okay.....but try and stick to one position.
You'd be better off riding your conspiracy theory to the beach.

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
Using a weapon to defend our boarders while being attacked is just. Using them offensively is unjust. Its called morality.
If you should check back in...so once we run the bad guys out of the country...that's it? We simply leave them alone? Why did we go to Afghan..a movement you claimed to support. Is this not offensive movement past our border?
Since you supported the first Gulf War and the Afghan War...I can only conclude you are immoral

 

[scubadoo]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
I'm dumbfounded. We went into iraq for oil. Actually to set up our own oil empire. There is a conspiracy, because the people Bush appointed supported going into iraq. Gosh darnit, if you had an opinion for going into iraq you are a conspiracist. Bush is a moron. And a documenary with Joe Wilson as an expert, a liberal partisan hack, is a legitamate source of information. wow, you are all over the place. oh I almost forgot, and the USA are a bunch of terrorists.
Sit down and logically think this through.
The haters are incapable of thinking things through logically...they simply hate Bush...does not matter.
Some of the haters simply post to get a response...entertainment. As you can see. Tball is a hater...and flip fopped so much he/she was simply posting to get a response. Did not care if he/she contradicted or not. Was simply riding the wave to the beach...that's it.
I beleive what you saw over the last several posts from Tball was simply to ride the wave. He/she does most likley beleive the conspracy theory..the rest is a dog and pony show for entertainment.
That's how I see it.
You get that if you continue to engage ....eventually, the haterd gets in their way and they start showing the true colors as to why they continue on.

 

[darthtang aw]

Tardball, still waiting for 1 of 10 links.....I am never going to see those reports am I?
Ok, lets make this real simple. After 9/11 we said we would go after all countries and regimes that support terror (we did not give any timeline for this) The Iraqi Regime under sadaam supported terror. They paid suicide bombers money to their families to create terrorist acts . This is well documented and agreed upon by both democrats and republican. If you want I will show 10 links on this (but only after you show me the one you owe me).Therefore we were justified by these means alone for our removal of the Iraqi regime.
THE WAR WAS NOT ONLY ABOUT WMDS!!!
Terrorism is not just al qaeda and those people that did 9/11.

 

[reefraff]

Bush had Powell report to the United Nations, that Saddam had Nuclear Facilities. & they were trying to purchase yellow cake from Niger.... "That was a lie".

Did you read the post story that included this
"And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address."
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
I don't know how many different sources you need to see this from before you accept it. I mean damn, do you only read agenda driven blogs or something? This stuff has been in the news. I realize is isn't played up like negative information but it has been out there.
Still waiting for an answer to this as well

 

[stdreb27]

see the problem is that you are arguing that the only argument the US government presented was supporting the invasion of iraq was because of WMD's. And that because in your mind there were none, that Iraq was not a threat to the usa and de-legitimised our presents there.
Not only that you argue that simply the presents of Bush advisors who supported returning to Iraq indicates that they invaded Iraq for personal gain, oil ect.
You are quick to point out that Powell quit, but fail to point out he was the other side of the coin. In the argument. And his communicated misgivings were not enough to outweigh the clear need for the invasion.
But regardless of what you think the reasons were. How many mass graves, how many human biological testing facilities, how many rapes would have been enough for us in the USA the people with the biggest gun have to watch happen before it justified in your might that it may be a good time to step in and stop these mudering mosters who were in control of Iraq?
You have no frame of reference if you call our soldiers, my family that is over there right now, terrorists.