If Powell was just "enlightened" as to the situation in Iraq in the last couple weeks then we have a major incompetence issue before us. That statement seems seems a bit bizarre to tell you the truth Pat...like you're dabbling with a variety of chemicals and not sharing with the rest of the group here. I mean I'm guessing you're kidding with that one.
So how do you explain his straightforward attitude? You know he is not yes man for Bush.
In your response to my post you gave no indication you had a clue as to what I was talking about. You seemed to just have the attitude that the French should be left on their own and expect no help from the United States in the future. Not a lot of thought on your part put into that response really. It also seemed to ignore the general theme of what I was saying. I'd call it a Bill O'Reilly response...totally vacant.
Reg lighten up here. If the French truly have a problem with Muslims overtaking their country why is this not brought to the forefront?
Again here with this response you seem to be on another planet. I've stated numerous times we've known about terrorists and the likelyhood that they would and will continue to attack us on our own soil.
How long do you think 170,000 troups will be over there? Not long my guess would be. I know we have gaping holes in our immigration. Mr. Oreilly who you slam at will has continually pounded this point home.
That was the problem I said we should be addressing. I'm not sure how you could have missed that but you got something right...Warfare has changed and we've changed it. There now no longer needs to be an attack on the United States by a country for us to attack them. We'll attack someone now for "the possibility that they may in the future be part of a terrorist action against our country". Do we need a crystal ball for these kind of predictions? We've yet to make a solid tie between Iraq and 9/11 but we're set to attack them anyway.
Do you feel that there is absolutely no ties between Bin Laden and Sadaam?
Let's just be clear that 9/11 and the "WAR WITH IRAQ" are two totally unrelated subjects. We're attacking Iraq because we'd like a regime change. It's cut and dry. I believe Saddam should go but the timing is strange.
Like when Blowjob Bill sent us bombing in 1998?
What is odd about the timing of this one?
I'm not sure we're on the same page here again. See my point was we are sending a message but probably the wrong one. Hey, if Saddam gives up and we get out of this deal without firing a shot, then Bush will look like a brilliant strategist. Like he rattled the sabre and got his way. Seems unlikely though.
Well one things for sure. Sadaam knows were coming. Time to stop fucking around.
Providing that Bin Laden is alive. I personally think he is dead and this whole tape business is a hoax.
Interesting theory.
Why no video is my question
So Iraq is the "plant" in your opinion? Funny because Saddam and bin Laden pretty much stand for opposite things.
What's that polar terrorists?
Stop acting like a Martyr. You made some good points. I just happen to disagree with all of them
I thought I was being funny...well, I do have a strange sense of humor.
Hnmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........
