Support for repealing Obamacare plunges to an all time low.

This.

Yeah some of us have memories!!

9/11 NEVER FORGET and also NEVER FORGET WHO HAS THE BLOOD OF 9/11 ON THEIR HANDS

and in the end it gets to be a punchline for a big joke right:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/nKX6luiMINQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Those weapons of mass destruction gotta be somewhere treeman

 

I know I shouldn't have, but I had to view a post from someone on ignore... One more, and that'll do it.

IBTL - ever heard of the Duelfer report? Look it up. It has the answers you seek, and you are not worth any more of my time.

Oh, and thanks for the rep.

(because I know you like Heritage)

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/the-real-news-in-the-duelfer-report

Perhaps this is more reputable?

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004

Relevant quote:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

So yeah, nothing to see, had Saddam stayed in power and sanctions were lifted as the Leftists such as yourself wanted then everything woulda turnout out just peachy.

You're a disrespectful POS. I will debate with libs all day long like NS and Deckard if they keep it somewhat civil but those that don't go on ignore. There aren't enough hours in the day to deal with worthless douchebags like you, so off you go to IgnoreLand.

 

WMD's were a disinformation campaign designed by Saddam's ministry to discourage rebellions and outside attacks. However it backfired on him, it actually played into the neo-cons plans to replace Saddam, gain access to oil, and re-order the Islamic region.

I as a liberal, was for overthrowing a dictator, but in retrospect, it was a huge mistake to disband the civil system and army. The chaos let centuries old sectarian rivalries and power plays reduce the country to violence that will now take 50 years to settle out.

fact....now let's move on

 

treeman, I respect your service. You will never hear me attempt to demean someone who served honorably in our volunteer military, which I consider to still be the finest in the world. Just don't attempt to defend a war that we should never have fought, a war that left us far weaker as a nation, both economically and militarily, by absurdly blaming all the very predictable consequences on the Democratic Party, a party that I belong to. A party that largely voted for Bush and Cheney's needless adventure in Iraq, something this Democrat was very much against, and said so at the time right in this forum. A party you just called "a party of traitors."

So, according to you, I am either a traitor, or deluded and naive. To that sentiment, sir, I have but one thing to say. **** you.

 

Come on man, really? What would you do if America was just hit with the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor? Your comments do not show respect to his service. Rather, your obscene gesture is purely an ad hominem attack on his values and beliefs. You do not agree with him? Fine. But do not resort to personal attacks in your argument.

 

Treeman starts with personal attacks calling people traitors to their country, saps, etc. He does it quite frequently.

You should give your advice to treeman, or go back and read his posts. The first personal insult came from treeman.

 

Invading Iraq in retaliation of 9/11 is like invading Iraq in retaliation of Pearl Harbor.

 

Still butthurt over the Manning thread? To be fair, I gave you multiple chances to see reason before I insinuated that you might be a "sap". How'd that argument go, do you still think that those pilots are "murderers"? Probably so, would be my guess.

I always start out respectfully. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you will debate in good faith and that you come at it with an open mind. When it becomes clear that neither of those conditions are true then there's really no reason to be civil. It tends to degenerate because people on this board, which happens to be almost as liberal as DU, don't like what I have to say.

I have a family. I actually had a pretty productive decade off the boards. My wife is awesome, my kid is awesome, and professionally I can't complain. I don't really have time to argue with a bunch of kids on a message board anymore, but when Clutch offered the opportunity to get back the treeman account I jumped at it.

Pretty soon my screen will be filled with red lines in the D&D. Oddly, in GARM it's still almost free of red lines. It's almost as if most of the people who spend time in D&D don't visit GARM... The D&D is a diversion for me, that is all.

 

What a stupid statement. We invaded Afghanistan in response to 9/11. We invaded Iraq for a multitude of reasons, which I have already explained. Invading North Africa post-Pearl Harbor would be a more apt comparison - not exactly the same enemy but the same war and a similar threat, done for strategic reasons.

 

More apt then: attacking Iraq after 9/11 would be like attacking Russia after Pearl Harbor.

 

Treaman I'm also trying to be respectful of your service. however we don't needs you to remind us of the reasons for iraq. wmd-none. i couldn't believe at the time it was an excuse since he hadn't used any in a decade. dubious terror ties and there was no way that half ass country would develop nuke capability . the simple fact is there were americans who wanted to invade since the first gulf war and bush gave them their wish.

 

Invading Afghanistan and Iraq were both in hindsight terrible decisions. Osama wasn't even caught in Afghanistan.

Most likely the Taliban will get its power back in Afghanistan and who knows what will happen with Iraq.

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DkS9y5t0tR0?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

The invading of Iraq was a bad decision the moment it became a serious idea. That was not a hindsight observation.

 

Lordy lord - i wouldn't have believed that somebody would have dredged up the treeman user ID after the great WMD embarrassmetexile of the early 00's...and then begin using it to argue about nonexistent WMD's in iraq...turns out there's not a limit to some people's shame(or more likely they never left).

 

You say this quiet often, but still manage some long ass posts.

 

What's amusing to me is that I don't doubt that I'm easily 20 years older than he is. "Kids" indeed. However, if someone essentially calls me a traitor or "deluded and naive," I'm going to respond if I see the post. What utter bull****. I noticed that he didn't respond to my post. What does that tell you?

 

This is the problem with politics today. When a person encounters somebody with whom they disagree politically, they start throwing around pejoratives rather than engage in earnest debate.

 

quit leaning on the fact that you're so old. Nobody cares, sorry.