|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
If Dems Vote For More War Funding And The Media Ignores It, Does It Make A Noise?
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| If Dems Vote For More War Funding And The Media Ignores It, Does It Make A Noise?
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Jackie's Career |
The spending bill passed overwhelmingly, 92-3, with only Robert Byrd, Tom Coburn, and Russ Feingold in opposition.
Naturally, none of the major newspapers decided to report on this. But here's a link to the roll call from the Senate website:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...on=1&vote=00359
|
|
|
| jtheweirdo |
| Don't you know? To end the war in Iraq, you have to keep funding it and build permanent US military bases there so we can always have our military there. It seems that if you remove "combat troops" the insurgency will magicly accept our military occupying their nation and the war will end, even though we will have thousands of troops still in Iraq. And don't forget the permanent US Military bases, as long as none of the troops on those bases are "combat troops" the Iraqis will dance around the bases with flowers and candy. |
|
|
| mingmen |
you mean the troops are not home yet
 |
|
|
| NC-Stern-Mark |
| The MSM will ignore it. They own the fucking war, republicans and democrats. |
|
|
| jtheweirdo |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen you mean the troops are not home yet
|
Yet? The troops are NEVER coming home. They will be cycled but out of all democrats and republicans running for president, only 3 don't want a permanent US military presence in Iraq. |
|
|
| alter-ego69 |
Quote: Originally posted by jtheweirdo Don't you know? To end the war in Iraq, you have to keep funding it and build permanent US military bases there so we can always have our military there. It seems that if you remove "combat troops" the insurgency will magicly accept our military occupying their nation and the war will end, even though we will have thousands of troops still in Iraq. And don't forget the permanent US Military bases, as long as none of the troops on those bases are "combat troops" the Iraqis will dance around the bases with flowers and candy. |
We have troops stationed in 128 countries. Given Iraqs strategic location in the Middle East, it would be foolish not to have troops stationed there, too. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by alter-ego69 We have troops stationed in 128 countries. Given Iraqs strategic location in the Middle East, it would be foolish not to have troops stationed there, too. |
wtf are you talking about?
iraq would clearly not become a terrorist haven were we to leave.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by jtheweirdo Yet? The troops are NEVER coming home. They will be cycled but out of all democrats and republicans running for president, only 3 don't want a permanent US military presence in Iraq. |
better get used to it :burst: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen wtf are you talking about?
iraq would clearly not become a terrorist haven were we to leave.
:rolleyes: |
Lest you forget (or are clueless), Saddam Hussein's regime was a state-sponsor of terrorism.
Iraq was a "terrorist haven" before we got there in 2003. |
|
|
| salafibrigades |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord Lest you forget (or are clueless), Saddam Hussein's regime was a state-sponsor of terrorism.
Iraq was a "terrorist haven" before we got there in 2003. |
you are kidding right? do you ever read? iraq was not a terrorist haven but a secular up-and-coming nation with tons of universities and hospitals. this was despite the sanctions that killed over a million of their people since the 90's. which neocon are you a disciple of? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by VacateTheWord Lest you forget (or are clueless), Saddam Hussein's regime was a state-sponsor of terrorism.
Iraq was a "terrorist haven" before we got there in 2003. |
:burst: :burst: :burst: :burst: :burst: |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by salafibrigades you are kidding right? do you ever read? iraq was not a terrorist haven but a secular up-and-coming nation with tons of universities and hospitals. this was despite the sanctions that killed over a million of their people since the 90's. which neocon are you a disciple of? |
No, I'm not kidding and yes, I do read. But I don't read far-left websites or whatever prisonplant.com websites you get your information.
Hussein's Regime was supporting the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. This is a well-documented fact.
Stop with the notion that Iraq was a great "up-and-coming" nation and making the world community out as some sort of villian.
Iraq started 3 wars under the Hussein Regime and defied the UN 17 times after the first Gulf War.
Beyond that, Iraq was a model for all nations to follow.
:rolleyes: |
|
|
| Jackie's Career |
Quote: Originally posted by salafibrigades you are kidding right? do you ever read? iraq was not a terrorist haven but a secular up-and-coming nation with tons of universities and hospitals. this was despite the sanctions that killed over a million of their people since the 90's. which neocon are you a disciple of? |
Iraq was indeed a state sponsor of terrorism. Here is the video of an excellent speech given by Al Gore explaining just a few of the known links between the Saddam regime and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists:
Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
|
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
Quote: Originally posted by Jackies Career Iraq was indeed a state sponsor of terrorism. Here is the video of an excellent speech given by Al Gore explaining just a few of the known links between the Saddam regime and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists:
Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64 |
Whoa, easy with the smoking guns there - you'll disrupt the Liberal programming that "Bush Lied" and "Iraq was a paradise before we destroyed it"! :) |
|
|
|
|
|