You just proved the point................given enough rope.;)

Not at all! There's no way to predict the outcome of any decision. We indeed may be speaking German today if we hadn't entered WWII, but there's absolutely no way to prove it. the same with Iraq. We may, or may not, have been killing terrorists here if we hadn't gone to Iraq. That was a decision made based on the information available at the time. We will never know the timeline had it not happened. For all we know, much more horrible events would have happened by now if we had not. There is no way to ever prove it one way or the other.

How is that "liberal?" Care to elaborate on how that's "liberal?"

The only way we would be fighting them here is if we had crap security here. And that Iraq would have the army, weaponry, and transportation to get here and fight us here.

There is absolutely zero proof that if we didn't go to Iraq, we would be fighting them here. There is absolutely no stretch of the imagination that could even remotely indicate that if we didn't go to Iraq we would be fighting them here.

What nonsense. Ofcourse there is proof, Mul has it. Iraq was assembling hordes of terrorists to carry out attacks on US soil and interests. Saddam was funding and facilitating this. This is undeniable.

Iraq was also amassing WMD for use against US citizens on US soil. This is demonstrated by the sophisticated delivery systems, weapons programs and infrastructure that were captured by our brave boys, along with the captured WMDs (admittedly in quite low quantities) themselves.

It just cannot be denied that Iraq and SH, after 10 years of economic sanctions, presented a very real and present threat to the United States, and the VERY WAY OF LIFE of its citizens.

It reminded me of ramblings found at the Daily Kos.

I agree ... no stretch of your imagination. You are limiting yourself to conventional battlefield scenarios. That's a thing of the past.

No stretch of anyone's imagination who has a brain, and thinks logically and realistically.

It is YOU who is limiting yourself to conventional battlefield scenarios.....and yes, it does not relate to the issue of terrorism.

Invading Iraq is a conventional battlefield scenario. It is invading a country that didn't have the means to do anything to us, and it does nothing to address the issue of terrorism, which is not a conventional battlefield scenario. You're trying to fool people into thinking a conventional battlefield scenario will address an unconventional enemy. Nice try, but no dice.

Huh?

Sorry that my previous response was beyond your mental capacity. We were discussing the consequences of 'not' invading Iraq. Iraq had plenty of capability to do us harm, more so than Afghanistan and their al-Qaeda terrorist training camps. By not invading, Saddam would have had three more years to pursue his various programs of terror.

It doesn't take much imagination to envision numerous Fedayeen or al-Qaeda terrorists entering this country legally or illegally. Our country has had liberal policies to allow Saudi and other Arabs to enter as students, most pursuing degrees in science and engineering. We have an uncontrolled border to the south for people to come across. Canada's lax 'multicultural' immigration policies have allowed terrorist groups to form there and have access through our northern border, evident in the recent Toronto arrests.

Now, imagine our intelligence gathering and law enforcement programs encumbered with so many 'civil rights' restrictions which make it impossible to track these people or monitor what they are up to. You've got all the ingredients necessary to allow some very spectacular terrorist attacks.

Let me introduce you to your fellow moonbats where Kos made his infamous 'Screw them' remark about the four contractors burned and hung from the bridge.

That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."

Only you believe that. Even the admin, including Bush, doesn't believe that. They've admitted multiple times they were wrong.

Exactly. That's why a conventional battlefield (Iraq) will not address an unconventional enemy. How in the world can you believe that it will?

Again, what does Iraq have to do with that?

You are very naive, aren't you? Exactly what have they admitted 'multiple times' that they were wrong? About not finding the WMDs? They had materials and they were trying to obtain more. It's idiotic not to think some of that material - even in the form of crude 'dirty' bombs - would not make its way over here. In addition, he had his Fedayeen training camps for the sole purpose of creating terrorists. Be glad thousands of them have been eliminated over there and they did not have the chance to spread worldwide.

I never said that it would.

You're not too bright are you? Iraq would have been a source for terrorists into the United States and elsewhere in the world. Our inability to fight them is due to the 'enemy within' - the liberal mentality. Both work hand-in-hand to undermine efforts to expose and defeat terrorism.

For the third time:

The only way we would be fighting them here is if we had crap security here. And that Iraq would have the army, weaponry, and transportation to get here and fight us here.

There is absolutely zero proof that if we didn't go to Iraq, we would be fighting them here. There is absolutely no stretch of the imagination that could even remotely indicate that if we didn't go to Iraq we would be fighting them here.

If you don't agree, then you're saying it would.

How old are you? Six?

Apparently I'm much brighter than you.

THIS IS AWESOME.....

From your words:

That's like trying to prove that if we didn't go into WWII we would be speaking German. Kind of hard proving something that never happened.



BWAAAAAA

God you're funny.




Seriously now, even the admin has admitted multiple times they were wrong about Iraq. The source for terrorists in the world include places like Pakistan, who happens to be our ally, not Iraq. There were a handful of terrorists at best in Iraq before invasion. Osama hated Saddam. It's been documented, analyzed, officially reported. Quit rewriting and making up stuff.

How so? What is the "liberal mentality" you speak of? Can you be specific?

What efforts? Are you talking about Iraq? Even you admitted it's not a conventional enemy. So how can a conventional battlefield (Iraq) address an unconventional enemy?

The ones who are undermining efforts to expose and defeat terrorism are those who don't address the issue (the admin), via a conventional war against a country that had little terrorists in it in 3/2003, and which does nothing to address the issue of terrorism, and cutting homeland security funding for cities like New York and DC, and those who support this lack of effort (you). You're the enemy within.

LOL

You should ask yourself that. You enjoy trolling, don't you?

This concept is really difficult for you isn't it? You said: There is absolutely zero proof that if we didn't go to Iraq, we would be fighting them here. And I'm trying to explain to you that you cannot provide proof, one way or the other, of something that didn't happen. I thought the German analogy would have lit off a bulb in your dim-witted mind but I guess not. I can also say "There is absolutely zero proof that if we didn't go to Iraq, we would not be fighting them here."

Apparently it's difficult for you. When I quoted you, you were saying something that, according to your standards, can't be proven. I used your own words back atcha.......

I await your next troll post with bated breath.....

cool...

Most advocates of a specific point of view try to prove the unprovable.

One cannot prove a negative.

Two of my favorites:

"We haven't had a terror attack on US soil in five years".

"We are better off fighting them there than fighting them here".

While both statements have some truth to them, the reasoning behind them is faulty.

As are statements like "stay the course" (What is the course?) and "cut and run" (what would be the result of THIS action?)
Slogans, simply meant to eliminate meaningful dialogue. That is the "political way".

No deep thought, just jingoism.

What's faulty about the first statement? Have we had a terrorist attack on US soil in the last five years? This statement, by itself, can be proven true or false based on historical events.

But the following statement can not be proven true or false:

"If we had not invaded Iraq we would not be fighting them here".

Edit: Actually we have had terrorist attacks by Islamic radicals on US soil. The murders and attempted murders in Maryland and Virginia (Malvo/Muhammed) and N. Carolina (Taheri-azar) come to mind.

You're talking about apples and oranges here......

I can say if I shower, my dog will not smell. I can safely say that is not even remotely possible.

However, there is a grain of truth in what you say, based on the way it's phrased. I can safely say without a shadow of a doubt that invading Iraq has had zero impact on whether we would be fighting them here or not.

Folks:

The flaw in the logic is that no (major) attacks in five years can be solely attributed to what we have done and nothing to what the enemy's plans have been or currently are.

As to the "cut and run": It is a simplistic verbal attack meant to polarize opinion rather than understood as forcing the Iraquis into taking responsibility for their own future. If a timetable is established and turns out to unforseen events to be impractable, the date can be changed. No plan is simply that; a fairy tale: a "Neverending Story". We should stay long enough to get the job done, not become a baby sitter.

Since when did that become the Democrat mantra?

This post is awesome!

It doesn't contain a single fact (with the possible exception that you probably do let Arabs - the vast majority of whom are lovely people - in as students)... but is stated with such authority I almost believed it.

Re-read your first paragraph. Ask yourself if, prior to 2003, there have been more attacks on US and other Western interests from:

a) terrorists trained in Afghanistan; or
b) terrorists trained in Iraq.

914...Respectfully...

Taking a few words out of context is disingenuous at best.

Reread the whole post and just for a few minutes drop the partisan pose. Argue with the logic, not the jargon and party mantra!!

So in other words you believe:

1. Iraq did not have capability to build weapons or train terrorists.
2. Saddam would have not pursued weapons or trained terrorists between 2003 and now.
3. Terrorists trained in Iraq could not infiltrate the US.
4. Arab students are all little angels.
5. Our border with Mexico is completely secured.
6. Canada's open immigration policy does not lead to formation of terror groups.
7. Terrorists cannot cross the US/Canada border.
8. There have been no attempts to restrict intelligence gathering or sharing of intelligence between government agencies.

If you believe the above you live in a dream world. Do us a favor and stay in New Zealand, where you release terrorists back into the wild.

Listing a few factual statements with others that are unprovable doesnot make the list true!!! Of course, #8 seems to be an internal problem to the US and the mess we have in Washington!!

Fer cryin out loud..Can we all agree we are there, let's clean up the mess and than come home? The eggs are broken..either toss them out or make an omelet. There will always be new bogeymen arriving under the bed.

I disagree. The Democrats have long pushed for social programs and blame society for all ills, and downplay personal responsibility. It is never the fault of the individual, whatever the problem may be, and they are always play the 'victim' card. So now, in Iraq, the Democrats now want to abandon this long-held philosophy and they must take on the responsibility themselves.

All of them are either factual or based on a high degree of common sense. #8 is internal, due to those in this country who seek to undermine our ability to fight terror.

I'm confused. Is "your dog" referring to some part of your anatomy that usually smells or are you taking long hot showers with your dog?

If the latter is true, are you planning on posting pics in the random pics thread?

I do not agree. The statment you make is far too general and partisan. The situation is a bit more complex than that. True, many social programs were instituted by the Democratic party (Social Security, Great Society, New Deal). What happened to these programs in the ensuing years took BOTH parties to screw up as bad as they are!!

Claiming to be victims is not the purview of a single party.

Nor does the universe dictate absolute moral equivalence in criminality and/or corruption between political parties...In fact it is quite possible that one party is significantly more corrupt than the other. It is possible that the gravitational pull (for lack of a better metaphor) of the more corrupt party pulls the less corrupt party in its direction, in order to compete.

Please clarify your request...I am assuming you are requesting the dog's POV.

Liberal-speak for "Bush has successfully resuscitated an economy on the brink of recession and has skillfully and efficiently dismantled terrorism and the Democrat party."

LMAO, you're so bad! :)

And I don't have anatomy that smells!

pssst!

Indonesia

you have no clue...

and Pakistan.......

pssst!....Lebanon, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.

It is a process, Todd...This is not a sitcom, this is not a KISS FM top 40 song, this is a war on an ideology bent on murdering as many innocent people as possible...Either we do a Clinton and ignore the problem, or we deal with it...Either we deal with the problem now, or we pass it on (Clinton style) to the next generation, and perhaps a much more devastating attack.

http://a188.g.akamaitech.net/f/188/9.../10pm/ny_7.jpg

But I am sure if that was your son jumping to his death, you would be content because we didn't do something about it before it happened...I am sure you wouldn't have wanted to prevent 9-11-2001 if you had the chance, right Todd?