[Troll]

Originally Posted by Y3a

You mean like bringing MORE terrorists into the middle east and out of our backyards?

Do you have some proof for your statement that terrorists are leaving the West and going to the ME?

I was perfectly clear as to what I meant about Bush provoking this. Bush changed the character of the region by invading Iraq without a clear plan and without committing enough troops to make peace in Iraq.

[Peder Rice]

This thread is better if you think of ME as Maine.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Troll

Do you have some proof for your statement that terrorists are leaving the West and going to the ME?

I was perfectly clear as to what I meant about Bush provoking this. Bush changed the character of the region by invading Iraq without a clear plan and without committing enough troops to make peace in Iraq.

You are kidding right?

Because before then the region was a peaceful Eden.



Your hyperbolic posts are getting worse Troll.

[Y3a]

Originally Posted by Troll

Do you have some proof for your statement that terrorists are leaving the West and going to the ME?

It MUST have been a lie because even CNN reported on this OVER A YEAR AGO!

Originally Posted by Troll

I was perfectly clear as to what I meant about Bush provoking this.

Oh, you mean upsetting the status quo by fighting against Muslim extremists, violent dictators, and having terrorists killed ???

Originally Posted by Troll

Bush changed the character of the region by invading Iraq without a clear plan and without committing enough troops to make peace in Iraq.

You have to KILL A LOT OF INSURGENTS to make it quiet over there. Sure it was sure peaceful in Iraq while saddam was raping citizens, committing genocide etc.

[Kevin]

Bush provoked this?

I guess Bush provoked it all since the 70s huh Troll?

Yeah and that first WTC Bombing, All W's fault.

[greenG4]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Bush provoked this?

I guess Bush provoked it all since the 70s huh Troll?

Yeah and that first WTC Bombing, All W's fault.

The fall of Rome? Yep. All GW's fault. And it wasn't the Jews that crucified Jesus. Oh no. It was Bush. What else was Bush's fault?

[ink]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Yeah, unfortunately there's not much that would change if Kerry had been elected in 2004. We're just trying to survive Bush's first term. If Gore had been president rather than Bush in 2001-2004, however, we never would have gotten into Iraq. It would have been nice to throw the slacker out on his ass, though, even if Kerry is a pompous tosser.

Gore would probably also have started investing in alternative energy as well, which would at least have put us on the road to energy independence from the Islamo-facists; definetly more productive than what we have "accomplished".

Ohwell, Iran is really glad we came into the ME and handed the reins over.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by greenG4

The fall of Rome? Yep. All GW's fault. And it wasn't the Jews that crucified Jesus. Oh no. It was Bush. What else was Bush's fault?

Well it wasn't "The Jews" that killed Jesus either. As many of them followed him.

It was a group of hateful people that got together and got him crucified.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Y3a

It MUST have been a lie because even CNN reported on this OVER A YEAR AGO!

Well then I'm sure you can provide a link.

Originally Posted by Y3a

Oh, you mean upsetting the status quo by fighting against Muslim extremists, violent dictators, and having terrorists killed ???

No, overthrowing Saddam was not in itself the act that lead to this happening. I was perfectly clear in my post. It's what happened AFTER the toppling of Saddam that has exacerbated the problems. Lack of planning, not sending enough troops into Iraq because you're worried about the political impact of a draft, leaving a power vacuum in Iraq, standing by and watching the security situation deteriorate into a state of anarchy - these are all things that have lead to the current situation in the Middle East. Iraq is a battle zone for Sunni and Shiite interest groups and so far the Shiites are winning. That means there's now a direct Shiite link from Iran to Syria to Lebanon. Do you understand the significance of that? The US's failure to secure Iraq and its failure to achieve its strategic objectives there has emboldened those who think that with a little bit of violence, the US and its allies will abandon the region. In short, Iran is strategically outplaying the US and Israel on all fronts.

Add to that the fact that with 100 deaths a day in Iraq at the moment, most through Sunni vs Shiite violence, the risk that it will become the launchpad for a major war between Gulf states is rather massive at this point in time. What's going on in Lebanon is part of that mounting of tension and it's part of the rise of the Shiites. That is a direct result of the security situation in Iraq which the US is responsible for.

[davesimondotcom]

Kerry may actually be right. Instead of fighting in the Middle East, he would have made sure that the terrorists were fighting us right here in the US.

[Spliffdaddy]

It's kinda hard to say what Kerry would do if he were president.

He's as close to being the president as I am.