Announcement

**Patroklos** · August 26, 2005, 20:06

We should have had tunnel vision from day one on tracking Bin Laden

Did you just advocate "tunnel vision" as a serious appoach to the problem? I see why you are having problems now on so may issues.

Just so you know, it is the war against terrorism, everywhere. Not Osama Bin Laden, in one place.

**MOBIUS** · August 26, 2005, 21:23

Originally posted by BlackCat
The fact that people and politicians in the past had done something bad should make it imposiible for me in present to do otherwise now ? Thats plain stupid.

*COUGH**COUGH* RUMSFELD!!! RUMSFELD!!! RUMSFELD!!!

Granted we all know he's a washed up dinosaur throwback to the past - but he is a current washed up dinosaur throwback to the past...

We don't care about human rights - Saddam killed the overwhelming majority of his enemies as our ally. We only went after him the first time cos he got ideas above his station, so don't give me all this humanitarian bull**** especially when the reason we invaded was looking for WMDs - or did you forget that again...?

And talking of the past and present: Uzbekistan is a current ally of the US despite the massacre that was perpetrated there only a few months ago and the US response was to help the Uzbek dictator Karimov cover it up!

So don't give me this bull**** about spreading democracy and standing up for human rights - the US is for oil and a doorstep military presence...

Just how blind are you to the facts that are staring you in the face!!?

You also seem to forget that though there was WMD killings in Iraq, most of the killings was done with good old soviet hardware.

So if Iraq's WMDs were so useless - why did we have to invade the country looking for (and not finding) them!?

How about some consistency in your argument...?

P.S. Remember the US supplied the WMDs in the first place...

As usual you have just proven that you have your feets planted solidly in the thin air.

And you've just proved your first two arguments were utterly conflicted arguments that aren't worth the internet space you've posted them on...

As for the 3rd point, perhaps you're right - I keep hoping one day you will wake up and stop gullibly troughing down all the horse**** Bush and Blair are shovelling you...

Yep I definitely must be crazy...

**BlackCat** · August 26, 2005, 21:50

Originally posted by MOBIUS

*COUGH**COUGH* RUMSFELD!!! RUMSFELD!!! RUMSFELD!!!

Granted we all know he's a washed up dinosaur throwback to the past - but he is a current washed up dinosaur throwback to the past...

We don't care about human rights - Saddam killed the overwhelming majority of his enemies as our ally. We only went after him the first time cos he got ideas above his station, so don't give me all this humanitarian bull**** especially when the reason we invaded was looking for WMDs - or did you forget that again...?

And talking of the past and present: Uzbekistan is a current ally of the US despite the massacre that was perpetrated there only a few months ago and the US response was to help the Uzbek dictator Karimov cover it up!

So don't give me this bull**** about spreading democracy and standing up for human rights - the US is for oil and a doorstep military presence...

Just how blind are you to the facts that are staring you in the face!!?

So if Iraq's WMDs were so useless - why did we have to invade the country looking for (and not finding) them!?

How about some consistency in your argument...?

P.S. Remember the US supplied the WMDs in the first place...

And you've just proved your first two arguments were utterly conflicted arguments that aren't worth the internet space you've posted them on...

As for the 3rd point, perhaps you're right - I keep hoping one day you will wake up and stop gullibly troughing down all the horse**** Bush and Blair are shovelling you...

Yep I definitely must be crazy...

You really do what you can to prove my point that your feets are solidly planted into the air.

I guess that you have heard about the cold war despite the fact that you ignore it, but none of your claims hold for a second seen in that view.

You still dig up irrelevant informations and claims that it has any meaning in todays view.

**MOBIUS** · August 27, 2005, 14:34

Originally posted by BlackCat
You really do what you can to prove my point that your feets are solidly planted into the air.

Absolutely agree with you there - I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not an ignorant dumbass that doesn't even have the absolute minimum of intellect to realise how badly he got his ass handed to him in my last post...

I guess that you have heard about the cold war despite the fact that you ignore it, but none of your claims hold for a second seen in that view.

You still dig up irrelevant informations and claims that it has any meaning in todays view.

Irrelevant information!!?

In all my years on Poly, that is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read!

Just what ****ing planet are you on!!? I'm not sure what's funnier - the fact that I handed your ass to you so badly - or the fact that you're pretending it never happened...!

**BlackCat** · August 27, 2005, 15:08

Originally posted by MOBIUS

Absolutely agree with you there - I keep trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not an ignorant dumbass that doesn't even have the absolute minimum of intellect to realise how badly he got his ass handed to him in my last post...

Irrelevant information!!?

In all my years on Poly, that is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read!

Just what ****ing planet are you on!!? I'm not sure what's funnier - the fact that I handed your ass to you so badly - or the fact that you're pretending it never happened...!

Apparently not the same you are on - mine is called earth, whats the name of yours ? Planet of Fantasy and Illusion ?

**Sprayber** · August 27, 2005, 15:21

Originally posted by MOBIUS
So why was it we attacked Iraq again?

To give your life a purpose

**MrFun** · August 27, 2005, 15:31

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Since MOBIUS thinks it is easy to find one man, I say that we send him to the tribal regions of Pakistan to go look. It shouldn't take him long after we drop him off in the nearest village. After that (if he survives) we could send him after a few fugitives here.

But give him all the latest equipment, intelligence, and everything else that a super power has, and maybe he will find him.

**BlackCat** · August 27, 2005, 15:44

Originally posted by MrFun

But give him all the latest equipment, intelligence, and everything else that a super power has, and maybe he will find him.

What kind of advanced equipment are you thinking would help in the Afghani/Paki boarder areas ? And what kind of inteligence do you expect he could be introduced to that other forces can't use ?

**Ted Striker** · August 27, 2005, 16:22

Originally posted by Patroklos

Did you just advocate "tunnel vision" as a serious appoach to the problem? I see why you are having problems now on so may issues.

Just so you know, it is the war against terrorism, everywhere. Not Osama Bin Laden, in one place.

So tell me what the war on terrorism has to do with Saddam Hussein.

Thanks

**Ted Striker** · August 27, 2005, 16:25

Originally posted by BlackCat

No, it's not fck'ed up - just not as good as it could have been if planned better.

Talking about "normal" - I would really be scared of living in a world controlled by you/your way of thinking - too many dead people.

If you say so. The majority of Iraqis think the place is worse off than before the US and UK invaded. That's just common knowledge.

Or maybe they just don't know what they are talking about?

**Patroklos** · August 27, 2005, 16:27

So tell me what the war on terrorism has to do with Saddam Hussein.

You don't get off that easy, especially with a screen as weak as that.

Thanks

**Patroklos** · August 27, 2005, 16:28

If you say so. The majority of Iraqis think the place is worse off than before the US and UK invaded. That's just common knowledge.

Kind of like northern France was worse of during Normandy than the previous German occupation.

I know you are smarter than this.

**BlackCat** · August 27, 2005, 16:34

Originally posted by Ted Striker

So tell me what the war on terrorism has to do with Saddam Hussein.

Thanks

Not much. Saddam was just so stupid to attract attention with his claims of having WMD's and denying control that he didn't have it. If he had complied to the requests he and his family could have run Iraq for the next 50 years. Some Iraquis would prefer that - most others wouldn't.

**Ted Striker** · August 27, 2005, 16:54

Originally posted by BlackCat

Not much. Saddam was just so stupid to attract attention with his claims of having WMD's and denying control that he didn't have it. If he had complied to the requests he and his family could have run Iraq for the next 50 years. Some Iraquis would prefer that - most others wouldn't.

Man, you are seriously in dreamland.

How could he have complied with requests when he never had any weapons in the first place????????

Two weapons inspectors came back and said there were no weapons. The US team went in and found no weapons. Not even traces. And it wasn't like they found just a couple of weapons laying around.

THEY FOUND NOTHING

He didn't "attract" attention to those weapons, the US pushed the war and that's a fact. Period.

But the original question stands. How has invading Iraq helped the war on terrorism?

**Ted Striker** · August 27, 2005, 16:56

Originally posted by Patroklos

You don't get off that easy, especially with a screen as weak as that.

Thanks

ANSWER THE QUESTION

Thanks

Announcement

The US helped win WWII in less time than Bin Laden has been on the run since 9/11

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment