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.....