- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: roads lined with decapitated police and soldiers
Posted on 6/13/14 at 11:31 pm to gthog61
Posted on 6/13/14 at 11:31 pm to gthog61
quote:
frick you, obama ran on being so superior on such matters and all he has done is submit to our enemies and alienate oru allies. Going on the 6th Goddamned year of the obama admin a-hole
Ok, but why were we ever in Iraq and why is that fake country broken?
Posted on 6/14/14 at 7:55 am to volmaverick
The Islamist really love their beheadings!
This post was edited on 6/14/14 at 7:56 am
Posted on 6/14/14 at 10:00 am to windshieldman
quote:
Who the frick is who? I mean, lets say a group of Taliban from Afghanistan ran into ISIS guys, would they fight or be friends? What about ISIS and Al Qaeda, are they friends or foes? Does Al Qaeda consist of Sunnis and Shia? Do the Kurds get along with Shia? Damn this is so confusing.
Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS (ISIL) are all Sunni. Iraqi people and Iran are Shia. ISIS was established in 2004 shortly after Saddam was captured. It was a subsection of Al Qaeda made up of his remaining followers led by his former generals. They have recently gone off the deep end and are too extreme for Al Qaeda and they gave the ISIS the boot. So now they are forming an actual military and trying to take over a country and create an Islamic Revolution more extreme than what occured in 1979 in Iran. Iran is backing the Iraqi government because of their Shia state.
Posted on 6/14/14 at 10:59 am to asurob1
quote:This is one of the biggest hack statements on this board. The Democrats were all in on Iraq.
How many more lives will be lost due to George W Bush's war?
This post was edited on 6/14/14 at 11:10 am
Posted on 6/14/14 at 11:48 am to geauxnavybeatbama
geauxnavybeatbama
Thanks for answering
Posted on 6/14/14 at 11:58 am to Big12fan
quote:
I don't believe there is definitive explanation of his release.
quote:
Some say he might be more a composite of several individuals.
Okay - which is it? ("Some say" the moon is made of cheese.)
quote:
The prison in which he was held and shut down in 2009 and prisoners transferred to jails near Baghdad.
But you definitely agree that the leader of ISIS, assuming he exists and is not a "composite" - was released under Obama's watch, correct?
Just as the Bergdahl 5 were recently...
Posted on 6/14/14 at 12:16 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
I look forward to the day when we can completely ignore these sub-human beasts.
we can do it now but no one has the balls to do it. The middle east doesn't have anything that we need.
Posted on 6/14/14 at 12:58 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
It's over ISIS runs Iraq now. Obama let it happen.
So you'd like to send our troops back on the ground to do some more dying.
Posted on 6/14/14 at 1:00 pm to gthog61
quote:
frick you, obama ran on being so superior on such matters and all he has done is submit to our enemies and alienate oru allies.
Going on the 6th Goddamned year of the obama admin a-hole
your tears are delicious.
Posted on 6/14/14 at 1:08 pm to cwill
quote:I don't understand the point of this question.
Ok, but why were we ever in Iraq and why is that fake country broken?
OK. Let's lay EVERYTHING. 100% at Bush's feet. Nothing whatsoever at the feet of congress. No one. Fine.
Then what?
I mean, I don't think the point of being in charge NOW is to simply be able to say, "why should I do anything, I didn't frick it up". When one runs for President basically under the argument that "I and my party are a lot better than the other guys", that means that they inherit and must solve the problems they say they are so much better at dealing with.
Otherwise, why even vote for someone new? That's like hiring a new CEO to replace the failed last one and then, he simply refuses to address any and all company issues that predate him.
Posted on 6/14/14 at 1:45 pm to asurob1
quote:
How many more lives will be lost due to George W Bush's war?
A simple 8th grade civics lesson would do you well. President's don't declare war....at least they aren't supposed to.
Oh, and I'll just drop this here...
quote:
One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Popular
Back to top


1







