Six and a half Years after 9/11 And OBL Still Making Threats

[LoungeMachine]

Bin Laden Warns Europeans Over Cartoon



By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: March 20, 2008

Osama bin Laden denounced the publication of drawings insulting to the Prophet Muhammad in a new audio message and warned Europeans of a strong reaction to come. In the message, which appeared on a militant Web site that had carried statements from Al Qaeda in the past, a voice believed to be Mr. bin Laden’s did not specify what action would be taken but said, “Let our mothers bereave us if we do not make victorious our messenger of God.” The message was posted after Danish newspapers on Feb. 13 republished a cartoon showing Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban to show their commitment to freedom of speech after the police said they had uncovered a plot to kill the artist. The drawing was one of 12 cartoons first published in a Danish newspaper that set off major protests in Muslim countries in 2006. “Publishing these insulting drawings,” Mr. bin Laden said in the recording, “is the greatest misfortune and the most dangerous.” The five-minute message, which featured English subtitles, is Mr. bin Laden’s first for 2008. It came as the Muslim world celebrated the holiday that marks the birthday of the Prophet Muhammad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/world/europe/20briefs-laden.html?ref=europe

[LoungeMachine]

5 years bogged down in Iraq

3 trillion dollars wasted.

Thousands of American men and women sacrificed.

Hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed.

Afghanistan being run by puppets

Taliban returning in numbers.

Our Constitution being shredded.

Our own Government warrantlessly spying on us.

Our own ports and borders still unsecure.


BUT THE GUY CHIMPY CLAIMED HE'D GO AFTER, AND BRING BACK DEAD OR ALIVE is still out there making threats against Europe.



This is a great "War on Terror" you Republican Clowns have waged. :rolleyes:

Mission Accomplished !!!

[hideyoursheep]

You worry too much.




Once the Chinese own the US outright, Bin Laden and Co. can concentrate on the new kid, attacking Bejing instead of NY.



We're almost there.

What a strategery!!

[Deklon]

Lounge...you forgot a few things.

NO ATTACKS ON THE US BY PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO SO IN A SECOND IF THEY COULD.

10's of thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists killed and captured.

The removal and execution of one of the worst WMD's of all time- S. Hussein.

The removal of same who had used and could produce more WMD's. And if given the chance would have tried to have them used against the US.

The capture of most of the people resonsible for 9/11.

Prevention of perhaps many terrorist attacks here and abroad.

Now I know you don't possess the ability to understand the President's enormous responsibility nor can you allow yourself to give him any credit for anything. And I'm fairly confident you aren't in the oval office every morning during the security briefings. In other words, you hve about 20% of the knowledge you need right now to judge if the President's strategies and tactics will someday prove to be right or wrong.

I leave you with the following question. If we had never gone to Iraq, and then yesterday a WMD of some sort killed hundreds of thousands in LA, and we later found out that WMD originated in Iraq, you would have been the first to scream about "Chimpy" not taking out Saddam back in 2002 when their was ample evidence to suggest he COULD have WMD's. You would have sited the brilliant Democrats like John Kerry and both Clintons who all stated in the past that Saddam had to be taken out AND that he posesses WMD's and that "Chimpy" failed to act. But it is far easier for you Monday morning quarterbacks to spout on message boards nothing but vitriol for the man who is nearly solely responsible for the safety of America and it's citizens.

[Seshmeister]

Jeez...

[LoungeMachine]

I know.

Sheep 'til the bitter end.

:gulp:

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Deklon
Now I know you don't possess the ability to understand the President's enormous ....

Lack of focus?

Incompetence?

[Deklon]

LOL, you're name calling is priceless. Sheep, Chimpy etc.

However, can you formulate a response to my points or to my to my scenario?

Again, I can see how you've reached your conclusions. But what baffles me is your sides inability to recognize that the President has had successes or give credit in any way. Secondly, can you at least admit that the scenario I presented was at least possible, and if so, going to Iraq MAY prove to have been worth it?

Respecfully, with no name calling,

Deklon

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Deklon
Again, I can see how you've reached your conclusions. But what baffles me is your sides inability to recognize that the President has had successes

Name


One.

[Deklon]

I named 6 in the first post I made in this thread.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
Lounge...you forgot a few things.

NO ATTACKS ON THE US BY PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO SO IN A SECOND IF THEY COULD.

And you keep kicking up a subterfuge myth claiming that the Iraq War has somehow protected us when actually the evidence is that many terror attacks in Europe are a direct reaction to the anger that it has stirred in Islamic lunatics...

The truth is is that there has been NO SUBSTANSIVE plot discovered, and no follow attacks occurred, which means that actual would-be terrorists in the US are either incompetent amateurs, or don't exist to any real extent...


10's of thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists killed and captured.

Mostly by mid-2002...


The removal and execution of one of the worst WMD's of all time- S. Hussein.

Why was he the worst? We supported him until he invaded our oil state of Kuwait in 1990. Until then he was thought of as a secular bulwark against fundamentalism, the kind that attacked us on 9/11...


The removal of same who had used and could produce more WMD's. And if given the chance would have tried to have them used against the US.

But he didn't have any!


The capture of most of the people resonsible for 9/11.

But not their supposed leaders...


Prevention of perhaps many terrorist attacks here and abroad.

There has been no real prevention of a REAL terror plot in the US. No significant stores of weapons have been recovered, no detailed finished plans have ever been hatched, and no clear people with ties to al Qaeda being picked up have ever been reported...



Now I know you don't possess the ability to understand the President's enormous responsibility

Well, neither does the pResident. :)


nor can you allow yourself to give him any credit for anything.

What does he deserve credit for?


And I'm fairly confident you aren't in the oval office every morning during the security briefings. In other words, you hve about 20% of the knowledge you need right now to judge if the President's strategies and tactics will someday prove to be right or wrong.

"Tactics?" He fucking bungled Iraq with no post-war plan and idiotic fanciful notions of ideological fantasists...


I leave you with the following question. If we had never gone to Iraq, and then yesterday a WMD of some sort killed hundreds of thousands in LA, and we later found out that WMD originated in Iraq,

LMFAO!!

Your now giving bullshit "what-ifs" hypothetical that have no basis in truth as evidence to rationalize why "fearless leader" is great?

How about providing evidence that an event ever could have happened? Saddam never, EVER came anywhere near doing such a thing!

Nobody, not even the dewy-eyed Bush clowns ever contend that...



...you would have been the first to scream about "Chimpy" not taking out Saddam back in 2002 when their was ample evidence to suggest he COULD have WMD's. You would have sited the brilliant Democrats like John Kerry and both Clintons who all stated in the past that Saddam had to be taken out AND that he posesses WMD's and that "Chimpy" failed to act. But it is far easier for you Monday morning quarterbacks to spout on message boards nothing but vitriol for the man who is nearly solely responsible for the safety of America and it's citizens.

LMFAO!! He's solely responsible?!

Then he should be tried for criminal incompetence regarding 9/11 then!!

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Deklon
However, can you formulate a response to my points or to my to my scenario?


The only "scenario" that is relevant is the one this so-called
president cooked up against Iraq in the first place.

You remember, right?

The aluminum tubes probably used for fucking monkey bars and NOT
making nukes?

The WMD's that he already used against his own people and probably against us in '91 that the US SOLD TO HIM, and now seem to be gone?
(probably used them all)

This jackass LIED! He and his droogs concocted a "scenario" that would hopefully benefit his "base" and has taken the focus off of the real threat and used our military as a security firm for long-term oil contracts that aren't going to happen anyway, while THE REAL THREAT
occupies a sliver of a country that actually HAS WMD's-
Pakistan. He has us too busy trying to clean up that monumental
"oopsie" -no time or resources for the ACTUAL threat.:rolleyes:

There's no defending that.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Deklon
I named 6 in the first post I made in this thread.

Now name some real ones.

Those are all absolute bullshit.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Deklon
Lounge...you forgot a few things.

NO ATTACKS ON THE US BY PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO SO IN A SECOND IF THEY COULD.



remains to be seen whether that was a result of our actions, or the fact that the terrorists just don't attack us that much. as evidenced: we clearly had a terrorist attack on the WTC in 1993. the next attack was a full 5 years later (the african embassies); 2 years after we had the cole. but it was a full 8 years since we had attacks on the continental U.S. soil. (1993 to 9/11/2001). was this clinton doing a great job for 5 or 8 years? or where the terrorists simply not that organized as to make yearly assaults?




10's of thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists killed and captured.

but were every one of these a threat to the U.S. prior to our invasion of iraq? i'm not saying any of those guys are good. and if you blow up an iraqi market, you're a terrorist. but were those people threats to the U.S. prior to our invasion? or did we give cause for people who otherwise wouldn't have attacked us to get involved?




The removal and execution of one of the worst WMD's of all time- S. Hussein.

eh...maybe. but not really to the U.S. but is he so much worse for WMDing the kurds than pol pot was for killing the cambodians conventionally? or kim jong for starving his people to death? or idi amin? or mugambe? or?...




The removal of same who had used and could produce more WMD's. And if given the chance would have tried to have them used against the US.


nah, he wouldn't have. saddam wanted the power to keep us, but primarily the israelis and iranians at bay. you want to attack iraq? just know, you might get bloodied really badily. he was foolishly arrogant, but he wasn't THAT stupid to pre-emptively attack the U.S.




The capture of most of the people resonsible for 9/11.

Prevention of perhaps many terrorist attacks here and abroad.



perhaps. i might give you that. though, the question remains, are we also preventing attacks that are precipitated by our actions (however noble) in the middle east? i'm not necessarily going to laud the administration's accomplishments if we prevented a terrorist attack by some asshole who decided to attack us after we invaded iraq.




Now I know you don't possess the ability to understand the President's enormous responsibility nor can you allow yourself to give him any credit for anything. And I'm fairly confident you aren't in the oval office every morning during the security briefings. In other words, you hve about 20% of the knowledge you need right now to judge if the President's strategies and tactics will someday prove to be right or wrong.



true, but that's an argument for never criticizing a sitting president. instead, we do so with that info that we have.





I leave you with the following question. If we had never gone to Iraq, and then yesterday a WMD of some sort killed hundreds of thousands in LA, and we later found out that WMD originated in Iraq, you would have been the first to scream about "Chimpy" not taking out Saddam back in 2002 when their was ample evidence to suggest he COULD have WMD's. You would have sited the brilliant Democrats like John Kerry and both Clintons who all stated in the past that Saddam had to be taken out AND that he posesses WMD's and that "Chimpy" failed to act. But it is far easier for you Monday morning quarterbacks to spout on message boards nothing but vitriol for the man who is nearly solely responsible for the safety of America and it's citizens.

yep, would be horrible. but the question is, at what point does a non-descript threat rise to the level of needing a pre-emptive attack? cuba? north korea? venezula? france? saudi arabia?


personally, i was never convinced iraq posed such an imminent threat. i don't criticize us as oppressors or murderers or oil thieves, but i also don't have to like the operation in general. which i don't.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon
Lounge...you forgot a few things.
The capture of most of the people resonsible for 9/11.


Other than the fact the hi-jackers were killed so the people responsibile for the attack are dead. Let's follow the money shall we...

"Of the 9-11 hijackers themselves, 15 of 19 came from Saudi Arabia. Some American intelligence officials say the Saudis have been less than fully cooperative in the war on terror. Some wealthy Saudis have long been known to fund charities that are used as fronts to support terrorists." http://www.msnbc.com/avantgo/839269.htm

Hmmm........Riddle me this Batman!

What family has close business ties to Saudi Arabia, two of the members of said family became President, members of said family were in bed with Salem bin Laden who invested heavily in Arbusto Energy, a company run by “A current President“, through his friend James R. Bath. Several members of the “Can you guess which” family are investors in the Carlyle Group, a defense contractor and investment fund with numerous interests in the Saudi Arabia and the Middle East and connections to the Saudi Bin laden Group.

So we captured most of the people responsible for 9/11? Why was the investigation against the Saudi's stopped? Why were most of the people who funded the terrorist, directly or indirectly, never charged?

We had more of a reason to invade Saudi Arabia than we ever had for Iraq.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon
Lounge...you forgot a few things.


The removal and execution of one of the worst WMD's of all time- S. Hussein.

The removal of same who had used and could produce more WMD's. And if given the chance would have tried to have them used against the US.


Deklon, watch this 60 Minutes video link:
http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/151/iraq_war_saddams_view

This is the guy who interrogated Sadam. Watch the all the clips and see what Sadam has to say about WMD's, the war in Iraq, and his ties to terrorists.

[thome]

YES! YES! Mission Accomplished!

We have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is a group of human Beings!!!! Grown ADULTS!!!

A whole society of MEN? MILLIONS OF GROWN MEN!!

Who really get in a tizzy over a car fukking TOON!





That is thier fighting stance, that is thier MANTRA.............clowns.

If you draw cartoon we KILL ALL YOU!(they don't just get angry and say it, they actually -KILL- over a cartoon)

Yeah, there is a quality group of Human Beings.

Perhaps Osama should lay down a rap that all muslims should just eat a gun.

Then the little pansies won't cry anymore.

Why doesn't Osama just put anyone who makes ,"those cartoons" on ignor .......get on with his life...... it worked for me.lol

[Deklon]

Well, if your team objective is to silence people like me - you win. I am open to intelligent debate and routinely agknowledge that I understand all of your positions and how you arrived at them. But ! can not have intelligent debates with people who won't even agree that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

For you nickdfresh...

- You said I claimed the Iraq invasion has made us safer. I did no such thing. I simply stated my opinion that taking out a potential threat like Hussein may have prevented possible huge problems for us in the near or long term future. I backed up mu opinion by citing the fact that Republicans and Democrats alike believed the guy was a threat.

-I cited the Bush accomplishment that thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists have been killed or captured under Bush's watch, your comment is that that all happened by 2002. A) Thousands more have been captured or killed since then. B) Then it was BUSH who got them in 2001-2002 in the first place. But again - no credit from you.

- I said he removed Hussein who "had used and could produde more WMD's". Your reply is "but he didn't have any". Again, not what I said. And the fact that nearly EVERYONE, including HIS OWN GENERALS, thought he had them is apparently irrellevent to you.

-When I mention that the President's strategy and tactics on protecting this country may some day prove to be right, you go back to sayin he bungled post-war Iraq. That has zero to do with my point.

- When I site that the President has captured or killed most of those responsible for 9/11, including the MASTERMIND and PLANNER, you say "but not their supposed leaders". Yet again, no credit for success but ridicule for not getting Bin Laden, which I can agknowledge as the Tora Bora mistake. But you can't even agknowledge some big successes.

-As far as my scenario/hypothetical, you can't even admit that that scenario was at least possible. The evidence I have to support it is that the man USED WMD's against his own people, financially supported families of terrorists who killed people, and publicly wished for the destruction of America. If you can't see how those FACTS could possibly result in problems for America, then again 2 plus 2 equals 5 to you. I didn't ask you to believe the scenario, just agknowledge that the possibility wasn't that far fetched. If you are the President, who is ridiculed for not stopping 9/11 because of a routine memo talking about planes as weapons, do you sit back and wait and HOPE all the intel is wrong?

- I said he is NEARLY solely responsible for PROTECTING the country becasue he, in the end, has to make all of the finall decisions. You, quote me as saying he is SOLELY responsible. Yet again...not what I said. My point is that having the awesome responsibility of making final decisions (with input from thousands of other people) is beyond your and my comprehension. Do you understand the fact that he knows that ONE single lapse, missed opportunity, or ignored threat could cost thousands or more American lives? CAn you not even accept that it is an enormous responsibility with no margin of error? I accept that fact, and therefore, feel I understand why he does what he does. But you won't agknowlegde that the threat is even real...2 plus 2 equals 5.

What is most frustrating for me individually, though, is that I have read dozens of books and hundreds of articles written by people who both support Bush and who hate him. I study these issues hard and, thus, form opinions. Yet you need to bring the discussion down to the "your a sheep!" and "Chimpy" level. It is my opinion that the Presient is a man and a human being just like you and me. I believe he is faced with extraordinary tasks and repsonsibilites that every day people like us will never know. I understand and have routinely criticized his many errors. But what you all do is belittle him to an object or a monkey (that sounded funny writing) and will not even believe that he has done ONE thing right. I believe your mind is so hateful and closed on Bush, that you can't even be the slightest bit rational. You have that right, and I again understand why, but it's no longer worth my time trying to discuss issues here since we can't even agree on a starting point. We will know for real over the next many years, or even decades, whether Bush was a genius or a fool and right or wrong. If you are all right, and I am misguided and wrong, we'll certainly be in big trouble.

Peace

[Seshmeister]

We've been in big trouble since enough people voted for that monkey to allow him to steal the office.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Deklon
Well, if your team objective is to silence people like me - you win.



sorry, dude. didn't mean to gang attack. it's just that the other side's been slightly lacking in debate lately, so you're likely to get a good response. that's a good thing; people are reading you...

though it often means you can't respond to everybody. no worries.

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Deklon

- I said he removed Hussein who "had used and could produde more WMD's". Your reply is "but he didn't have any". Again, not what I said. And the fact that nearly EVERYONE, including HIS OWN GENERALS, thought he had them is apparently irrellevent to you.

Bush knew before going to war with Iraq that they didn't have WMD's
This is an article called Bob Woodward Replies:
He mentions the meeting between Tony Blair and Bush.

"The March 10 disclosure was not the only Manning memo element missing from Woodward's account of the Bush-Blair meeting--and perhaps not the most significant element absent from Woodward's rendition. The once-secret memo also noted that Bush and Blair had acknowledged that no WMDs had been found in Iraq; that Bush had raised the possibility of provoking a confrontation with Saddam Hussein; that Bush had discussed the possibility of assassinating Saddam; that Bush had said that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups"; and that Blair had agreed that sectarian warfare was improbable.
Woodward maintains that Plan of Attack in prior sections had covered most of this. But some of his examples are not fully on point. The fact that Blix had told the UN that no WMDs had yet been found and that US intelligence sources had told Woodward the same makes for a different story than Bush saying to Blair that no unconventional weapons had been unearthed and suggesting they might stage an event to convince the public that war was warranted. According to the Manning memo, one idea Bush had was to paint UN colors on an American U-2 spy plane that would fly over Iraq and (Bush hoped) draw fire from Iraqi forces.

But is "their" focus the only, or the most appropriate, focus for a historian or journalist writing about this meeting? The meeting was important because of the politics--though ultimately the second resolution fizzled and Blair had to make do with an invasion not explicitly authorized by the United Nations. But the meeting was also important because it revealed that Bush was so eager to go to war he was considering--in the absence of WMDs--contriving an incident to start it. The Manning memo--the full contents of which have not yet been disclosed--also is significant in that it shows Bush and Blair dismissing the prospect of sectarian violence in post-invasion Iraq. (Woodward's reply does not direct us to a portion of his book in which Bush makes a similar comment.)"
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames?pid=74954

[vh rides again]

Originally posted by Deklon
Lounge...you forgot a few things.

NO ATTACKS ON THE US BY PEOPLE WHO WOULD DO SO IN A SECOND IF THEY COULD.

10's of thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists killed and captured.

The removal and execution of one of the worst WMD's of all time- S. Hussein.

The removal of same who had used and could produce more WMD's. And if given the chance would have tried to have them used against the US.

The capture of most of the people resonsible for 9/11.

Prevention of perhaps many terrorist attacks here and abroad.

Now I know you don't possess the ability to understand the President's enormous responsibility nor can you allow yourself to give him any credit for anything. And I'm fairly confident you aren't in the oval office every morning during the security briefings. In other words, you hve about 20% of the knowledge you need right now to judge if the President's strategies and tactics will someday prove to be right or wrong.

I leave you with the following question. If we had never gone to Iraq, and then yesterday a WMD of some sort killed hundreds of thousands in LA, and we later found out that WMD originated in Iraq, you would have been the first to scream about "Chimpy" not taking out Saddam back in 2002 when their was ample evidence to suggest he COULD have WMD's. You would have sited the brilliant Democrats like John Kerry and both Clintons who all stated in the past that Saddam had to be taken out AND that he posesses WMD's and that "Chimpy" failed to act. But it is far easier for you Monday morning quarterbacks to spout on message boards nothing but vitriol for the man who is nearly solely responsible for the safety of America and it's citizens. Amen.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Deklon
Well, if your team objective is to silence people like me - you win. I am open to intelligent debate and routinely agknowledge that I understand all of your positions and how you arrived at them. But ! can not have intelligent debates with people who won't even agree that 2 plus 2 equals 4.

Were you talking to me?

Who's "driving you out?"

No one has edited you or even attacked you...


For you nickdfresh...

- You said I claimed the Iraq invasion has made us safer. I did no such thing. I simply stated my opinion that taking out a potential threat like Hussein may have prevented possible huge problems for us in the near or long term future. I backed up mu opinion by citing the fact that Republicans and Democrats alike believed the guy was a threat.

I think you were in fact were making a hypothetical scenario which contained something of Saddam producing chemical weapons for terrorists. Something he never did, I merely pointed this out and you're blindly speculating with "what-ifs?" to rationalize the why we should all love fearless leader...


-I cited the Bush accomplishment that thousands of Al Qaeda and other terrorists have been killed or captured under Bush's watch, your comment is that that all happened by 2002. A) Thousands more have been captured or killed since then. B) Then it was BUSH who got them in 2001-2002 in the first place. But again - no credit from you.

Yes, right after 19 hijackers plowed airliners into the Twin Towers...

Killing and capturing terrorists was sort of an academic thing to do at that point...

I'm not sure he really deserves an award for that. He merely unleashed the CIA, FBI, and the special operatives of our military after pressuring Pakistan that supported the movement that worked with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and that was a pretty academic decision after 9/11, but they did the actual work...


- I said he removed Hussein who "had used and could produde more WMD's". Your reply is "but he didn't have any". Again, not what I said. And the fact that nearly EVERYONE, including HIS OWN GENERALS, thought he had them is apparently irrellevent to you.

Um, his own generals knew he didn't have them and said that they would have used them if they did...

And I never said most didn't he did have WMDs, but certainly UN weapon's inspectors didn't find them.

More importantly, even if had chemical weapons, it simply didn't matter since would have used them to deter attack from Iran (who have them) because Saddam's army was in shambles from sanctions...


-When I mention that the President's strategy and tactics on protecting this country may some day prove to be right, you go back to sayin he bungled post-war Iraq. That has zero to do with my point.

Again, it's all belief with no real facts. And his "bungling the war in Iraq may produce more terrorists angered by US presence in the region and the invasion/occupation...


- When I site that the President has captured or killed most of those responsible for 9/11, including the MASTERMIND and PLANNER, you say "but not their supposed leaders". Yet again, no credit for success but ridicule for not getting Bin Laden, which I can agknowledge as the Tora Bora mistake. But you can't even agknowledge some big successes.

What are you talking about? They're "supposed leader" is Bin Laden. Did we capture him?

The "big successes" are old hat routinely crowed upon...



-As far as my scenario/hypothetical, you can't even admit that that scenario was at least possible. The evidence I have to support it is that the man USED WMD's against his own people,

But we provided the components to make those weapons.

And at the time, the US really didn't care all that much. It wasn't until he invaded Kuwait that anyone cared about Saddam.

It was about oil, not chemical weapons. I mean, our allies in Turkey have killed a lot of Kurds, but he haven't invaded them yet. Have we?


...financially supported families of terrorists who killed people,

In Israel, not the US...


and publicly wished for the destruction of America.

So? I see Americans crowing for the extermination of everybody in the Middle East on these forums all the time...


If you can't see how those FACTS could possibly result in problems for America, then again 2 plus 2 equals 5 to you. I didn't ask you to believe the scenario, just agknowledge that the possibility wasn't that far fetched. If you are the President, who is ridiculed for not stopping 9/11 because of a routine memo talking about planes as weapons, do you sit back and wait and HOPE all the intel is wrong?

Um, what?


- I said he is NEARLY solely responsible for PROTECTING the country becasue he, in the end, has to make all of the finall decisions. You, quote me as saying he is SOLELY responsible. Yet again...not what I said. My point is that having the awesome responsibility of making final decisions (with input from thousands of other people) is beyond your and my comprehension. Do you understand the fact that he knows that ONE single lapse, missed opportunity, or ignored threat could cost thousands or more American lives? CAn you not even accept that it is an enormous responsibility with no margin of error? I accept that fact, and therefore, feel I understand why he does what he does. But you won't agknowlegde that the threat is even real...2 plus 2 equals 5.


I accept that he has used one of the largest terrorist attacks in world history to justify a cynical, self-serving conquest of Iraq for it's oil rights...

Am I supposed to congratulate him and the cunts like Cheney for that?

Or even imagine that they were acting in America's best interests?

Yeah, right!


What is most frustrating for me individually, though, is that I have read dozens of books and hundreds of articles written by people who both support Bush and who hate him. I study these issues hard and, thus, form opinions. Yet you need to bring the discussion down to the "your a sheep!" and "Chimpy" level. It is my opinion that the Presient is a man and a human being just like you and me. I believe he is faced with extraordinary tasks and repsonsibilites that every day people like us will never know. I understand and have routinely criticized his many errors. But what you all do is belittle him to an object or a monkey (that sounded funny writing) and will not even believe that he has done ONE thing right. I believe your mind is so hateful and closed on Bush, that you can't even be the slightest bit rational. You have that right, and I again understand why, but it's no longer worth my time trying to discuss issues here since we can't even agree on a starting point. We will know for real over the next many years, or even decades, whether Bush was a genius or a fool and right or wrong. If you are all right, and I am misguided and wrong, we'll certainly be in big trouble.

Peace

LOL If you've read hundreds of books an articles, then that puts you one up on him. Because he notoriously reads only what he wants to (which isn't much other than Neoconservative shills), doesn't research, and listens only to sycophants that tell him what he wants to hear...

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Deklon


However, can you formulate a response to my points or to my to my scenario?



LMAO

Can? Sure.

Would I? Nope.

I have neither the time, nor the inclination to bother refuting FAUX NOISE Talking Points from a Busheep.

See, we've all read these before in here. You think you have us convinced you wrote those? :rolleyes:

Many, many Busheep before you have tried the same, tired bullshit lines.

The thing you forget, is even though you want to lump us all in as foaming at the mouth Liberal Loonies, we happen to be considered RIGHT by the likes of Hans Blix, Chuck Hagel, Colin Powell, and thousands of others nowhere near us on the politcal spectrum.

So cite your Rushisms all you want, dittohead. The "prove the negative" and "how about this hypocthical" has been done to death in here.

The world knows the truth behind this "war" [occupation] and this "War President" [criminal, liar, idiot]

Like I said, enjoy supporting McCain come November :D

We'll be waiting for you.

:gulp:

[LoungeMachine]

However, I would like to point out the many people who DID bother to refute your talking points, and who all owmed you like a cheap mule.

That was fun to watch, even if I did already know it was coming.

:gulp:

[Dan]

Can Us Kiwi's Buy Some Cheap Oil Off The US Now?

[LoungeMachine]

Careful Dan.

We may "liberate" and "bring freedom" to you guys next.

:gulp:

[Dan]

BTW.....Gas Is Cheaper,More Than A $NZ A Litre Of Milk.:(

[Dan]

Lounge,Maybe Run Cars On Human Waste Maybe The Way To Go In The Future.

[LoungeMachine]

How can a car run on cadverdouche?

:gulp:

[Dan]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
How can a car run on cadverdouche?

:gulp:

Damn The Oil,Lets Drink To No Oil At All.;)

[kwame k]

Originally posted by Dan
Damn The Oil,Lets Drink To No Oil At All.;)
Fuck it! Let's just drink!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Seshmeister]

Originally posted by Dan
Damn The Oil,Lets Drink To No Oil At All.;)

Ignoring all the climate change thing there is a pretty good argument that the last thing we should be doing with oil as a limited resource is setting fire to it.

Forget fucking cars, oil fueled electricity, climate CO2s and so on.

What happens when we can't make plastics anymore?

Wooden PC's?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Seshmeister



What happens when we can't make plastics anymore?

Wooden PC's?

Look at the bright side.

THIS board will be the only one still compatible with oak operating systems. :D

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Deklon
Well, if your team objective is to silence people like me - you win. I am open to intelligent debate

There's a "team"?


I don't want you silenced.




IF you are open to intelligent debate, there's only 2 rules that you should follow-

1. Don't try to use hypothetical scenarios to funnel the focus away from
facts.

2. Don't answer questions with questions (aka "pulling a Hannity"). It's very rude.

Ready?


Go.

[hideyoursheep]

Originally posted by Dan
BTW.....Gas Is Cheaper,More Than A $NZ A Litre Of Milk.:(

It's running close to a tie-

Too bad cars don't run on moo juice.

I would buy a cow.

Should I milk it or ride it, then eat it?









I'm gonna need a bigger backyard.

Cheers, Dan!
:bottle:

[cadaverdog]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
How can a car run on cadverdouche?

:gulp:

They could certainly run on what comes out of your mouth/ass.
The two interchangeable parts on your body.

Why would the president NOT want Bin Laden dead?
How does he profit by keeping him alive ?
If he killed him , he could have claimed mission accomplished
and concentrated on Iraq .
That's where the money is.

[cadaverdog]

Originally posted by hideyoursheep
It's running close to a tie-

Too bad cars don't run on moo juice.

I would buy a cow.

Should I milk it or ride it, then eat it?









I'm gonna need a bigger backyard.

Cheers, Dan!
:bottle:

People pay more for bottled water than gas , where's all the
people looking into that?

[DEMON CUNT]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4PGmnz5Ow-o&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4PGmnz5Ow-o&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[DEMON CUNT]

Originally posted by cadaverdog
People pay more for bottled water than gas , where's all the
people looking into that?

Yeah, bro. That's a total mystery. Who knows? Probably only God, cause he knows everything.

Someone should also investigate why the regions of our country that contain the least educated among us are predominately Republican. That would be really interesting.

http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/3099/hick3ey.jpg
"I'm fer McCain cause he gonna protect us from them damn islamofishes!"

[Nickdfresh]

LOL The biggest Republitards here couldn't write their way out of a fourth grade English Language Arts exam (Thomo, cadaverfag, and Vh rides for men) and all have a really really creepy homophobic anxiety reflected in half of their posts...

[thome]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
LOL The biggest Republitards here couldn't write their way out of a fourth grade English Language Arts exam (Thomo, cadaverfag, and Vh rides for men) and all have a really really creepy homophobic anxiety reflected in half of their posts...

Are you saying because you can write a sentence better and graduated English Language Arts that you became a anti Republican liberal and enjoy homosexual relations?

If so ,I would rather my mind wasn't "Enlightened" by the professor that got ahold of you.

PS. You dipsh!t I am not a Republican-o-' whatever the fukk you can play word spelling with.

If you think makeing up silly word additions, of words that don't exist and then claiming them as a confiirmation of your Intelligence over me?

How's this, You sir are a retarded over educated to the point of self awareness of the superiority within your own foolish mind, self important god of the most ignorant foolish jackass, I have ever read.

Next time you want to prove your superiority with words try using some that are actually recognized -AS WORDS-.

Thank you,
............Signed the ignorant of the world.

:eek:

[cadaverdog]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
LOL The biggest Republitards here couldn't write their way out of a fourth grade English Language Arts exam (Thomo, cadaverfag, and Vh rides for men) and all have a really really creepy homophobic anxiety reflected in half of their posts...

I might not be a perfect speller or expert on grammer but
I would be willing to compete with you on any IQ test that
we could compete on administered by an unbiased third
party.
I scored high enough on the AFQT (armed forces qualification
test) to be offered nuclear training . They don't offer that to
inbred hicks.

The reason I have traditionaly voted republican is because
where I live we depend on defense spending.
The only good jobs are with companies like Northrup , Locheed,
and whatever they call the others after all the mergers.
When they have work , we prosper .
When Clinton was president , defense spending went down
people got laid off , it affects everyone here.
Not that Bush has been a big help , pissing away money
on Iraq.But traditionaly republicans spend more on defense
where democrats spend more on social programs.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by thome
Are you saying because you can write a sentence better and graduated English Language Arts that you became a anti Republican liberal and enjoy homosexual relations?

If so ,I would rather my mind wasn't "Enlightened" by the professor that got ahold of you.

PS. You dipsh!t I am not a Republican-o-' whatever the fukk you can play word spelling with.

If you think makeing up silly word additions, of words that don't exist and then claiming them as a confiirmation of your Intelligence over me?

How's this, You sir are a retarded over educated to the point of self awareness of the superiority within your own foolish mind, self important god of the most ignorant foolish jackass, I have ever read.

Next time you want to prove your superiority with words try using some that are actually recognized -AS WORDS-.

Thank you,
............Signed the ignorant of the world.

:eek:

Thanks for the gaytard manifesto!

:)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by cadaverdog
I might not be a perfect speller or expert on grammer but
I would be willing to compete with you on any IQ test that
we could compete on administered by an unbiased third
party.
I scored high enough on the AFQT (armed forces qualification
test) to be offered nuclear training . They don't offer that to
inbred hicks.

Being exposed to radiation to see what happens doesn't count. :)


The reason I have traditionaly voted republican is because
where I live we depend on defense spending.
The only good jobs are with companies like Northrup , Locheed,

So you work in an industry where you need gov't subsidies to survive?


and whatever they call the others after all the mergers.
When they have work , we prosper .
When Clinton was president , defense spending went down

It went down before him during Bush 41, thank God as it should have, because the Cold Whore was over...


people got laid off , it affects everyone here.
Not that Bush has been a big help , pissing away money
on Iraq.But traditionaly republicans spend more on defense
where democrats spend more on social programs.

Um, so defense spending is basically a social program?

[thome]

Originally posted by Nick:cheese:d:cato: fresh
Thanks for the gaytard manifesto!

:)

Thanks for confirming my manifesto.

tHpowme-d!

[cadaverdog]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
It went down before him during Bush 41, thank God as it should have, because the Cold Whore was over...
The cold war? Was that the only threat to our country.
Should we just eliminate the military completely?
What keeps North Korea out of South Korea ?
Fear , the fear of the USA .
But if some knucklehead like you was in control.
They would march right across the border with no fear.
No other country in the world can stand up to China.
Go ahead gut the military.
Any pissant country out there would pull some bullshit.
And we would just have to take it.