Comments on: Romney Says It’s ‘Entirely Possible’ That Saddam Had WMD And Hid Them In Syria

By: Gay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers

Gay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:27:17 +0000

Gay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

By: Gay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass

Gay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:24:25 +0000

Gay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

By: Gay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries

Gay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:33:43 +0000

Gay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

By: Gay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock

Gay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 20:49:37 +0000

Gay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock

I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view

By: grand princess cruise line

grand princess cruise line — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:18:00 +0000

grand princess cruise line

Interestingly, this was on CNN last week.

By: mfd

mfd — Wed, 09 May 2007 23:06:25 +0000

To trrl –

Hmmmm — Didn’t the famously paranoid Saddam send his fighter jets into Iran to wait it out during the first Gulf War?

I am NOT suggesting that there were any WMD — just that your logic may need a little adjustment….

By: trrll

trrll — Wed, 09 May 2007 20:50:45 +0000

One can only laugh at the notion that the famously paranoid Saddam Hussein would send WMD to another country, out of his control, where a) he couldn’t use them, and b) they might in the future be used to attack him. Saddam Hussein would destroy WMD rather than give them away, confident that he could always rebuild the capacity in the future if opportunity presented.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Wed, 09 May 2007 19:38:48 +0000

May be the missing golden tablets are in Syria too?

By: jane

jane — Wed, 09 May 2007 17:49:00 +0000

It wasn’t Syria, it was Mars.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 09 May 2007 15:59:07 +0000

You’re the same people who thought Reagan was nuts calling the Soviet Union an evil empire and ridiculed his foreign policy and his Star Wars anti-missle program. After the wall comes down, Gorbachev and other former Soviet leaders confirm that the tough stance by the US is what did it. You have to have patience for policy to work – something libs do not have. If you ever find your Roosevelt/Truman/Kennedy foreign policy roots in the Democratic party, you may have a chance. For now, you’ll continue to go the way of all socialist regimes like in France and England – into obscurity.

By: pgw

pgw — Wed, 09 May 2007 14:23:23 +0000

“we are demonstrating force in the Middle East as a deterrent to radical Islam.”

actually, this administration is demonstrating horrible foreign policy as a deterrent to 60% of the american public.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 09 May 2007 13:41:20 +0000

Vinnie. You lost the argument when you said that Iran is not a threat. You are the laughing stock of the internet with that statement alone. How can anyone try to explain to you the threat of Iraq when you don’t think Iran and N. Korea are a threat right now? You don’t even understand we are in a war, hence you can’t understand why there are 100K troops there. I’ve stayed on point numerous times but you ignore it. It bothers you when I bring up historical facts from previous world wars that support my arguments of why we are there and why we are addressing the threat in Iraq and the world theater. My point for bringing up Japan was to explain to your thick head that we are demonstrating force in the Middle East as a deterrent to radical Islam. If you read history, which you want to bury instead, you will see the stark similarities between the fanatical and suicidal tendencies of the Japanese in WWII and radical Islam. Radical Islam is not contained within the borders of any single country but is a virus both here and abroad. They have been fighting us since the late 80’s. It is clearly more difficult to play “whack-a-mole” then to confront your enemy head-on. Afghanistan and Iraq are no longer threats because we have placed hundreds of thousands of troops there. They are strategically located smack in the middle of where this virus has been festering. The whole world has benefited from our presence there by the reduction of the Taliban and there promotion of terrorist camps. One third of the Axis of Evil has been dismantled with two legs left: N. Korea and Iran. Those threats are not going away until there is a regime change. Americans have responded properly and effectively. We are the worlds police because we’ve earned that right. We saved Europe’s ass in two world wars because of our late entrances into the world’s problems and our isolationist policies. We now have to mentally fight the Vinnies and Juan C’s of the world who want to continue this isolationist policy and have us react too late to a third world war. Never again. You don’t ignore problems so they go away. Now if you don’t understand the truth of why we are there, you can just continue in your conspiratorial ways and keep hating capitalism and trying to make this a Republican v. Democrat thing. Those who have broader vision continue to see the larger picture and focus on fixing the problem. Will it go smoothly? Of course not, no war has ever gone smoothly. 9/11 consolidated US policy to fight radical Islam and that fight is going to last a long time. You can choose to guide our policy or choose to stay in your conspiratorial little world and pretend US policy is just money driven. I suppose the Marshall Plan was an evil strategy by the Truman administration to make Japan and Germany excellent trading partners and economic world powers? Where do you guys stop with this non-sense?

By: Gene

Gene — Wed, 09 May 2007 13:03:39 +0000

I invite the 5 sons of Mitt Romney to join the Army rangers and inflitrate into Syria looking fors the WMDs!!!

http://tbogg.blogspot.com/2007/04/five-not-for-fighting-willard-mitt.html

Darn! I forgot Mitt’s sons are too important to be sacrificed in such a mission! There are too many poor to fill those billets.

By: Gill, T

Gill, T — Wed, 09 May 2007 10:24:12 +0000

Mitt says there could have been WMD in Iraq…does he mean Weapons of Mormonic Destruction? Romney’s Spin Doctors must have a makeover television show called “Queer Eye for the Conservative Guy.”

By: Vinnie

Vinnie — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:48:08 +0000

Also, you keep mentioning radical Islam. Wasn’t Iraq a secular state under Saddam? I was asking why we invaded Iraq. You then started talking about Islam. One more time, WHAT WAS THE THREAT TO AMERICANS IN IRAQ THAT NECESSITATED US SENDING IN OVER 100,000 TROOPS?

By: Vinnie

Vinnie — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:42:08 +0000

I thought we were talking about Iraq. Funny how you lead us to Japan and WWII. Are you saying that Iraq was planning a land invasion and we saved millions by sending in our troops? If not, your argument is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Stick to the point for ONCE in this thread!!!

By: Vinnie

Vinnie — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:39:06 +0000

Your strategy of changing the argument and topic is so obvious. You just can’t stick to the point. You also have mastered the straw man technique of inventing opponent arguments that they never said.

1. I never stated that Korea or Vietnam was about oil. Don’t you remember your history books? We were fighting ‘communism’, the number one threat to capitalism.

2. I never said Gulf War I was about oil. (Quote me if you can.) However, now that YOU mention it, I do think oil was a big factor in that war as well. We didn’t end up controlling oil fields but we were a lot happier with Kuwait owning them than with the uncooperative Saddam.

Maybe you should actually read what I say before you tell me what I said.

Again, have you read about the Iraqi Oil Law? Don’t you think you should? Here’s a link for you. This is an objective site but there are many sites that talk about how this is nothing but a boon for the American oil companies.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/04/18/669880-iraqi-oil-law-nears-final-stage

A relevant quote:

“Passage of the law, thought to have been written with heavy U.S. involvement, is one of four benchmarks the Bush administration has set for Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s struggling government.”

By: Mr. President

Mr. President — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:34:03 +0000

By the way, bin Laden is of Syrian descent

By: Mr. President

Mr. President — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:31:16 +0000

Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Kuwait sent out an S.O.S. to the world.
The US offered to move in.
Bin Laden got pissed because the infidels were on the Kingdom.
Saudis told Bin Laden to F*ck off.

that is why the US was and is in the Mid-East

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 09 May 2007 06:14:54 +0000

My arguments are supported by historical facts Vinnie. Go read “Truman” by David McCullough and “Flyboys” by James Bradley. Both of them support the fact that the atomic bomb saved literally millions of lives. Japan was prepared for national suicide with a land assault on the Japanese mainland. It’s a universally accepted fact confirmed by the Japanese people. The destruction of two major cities, as horrendous as that was, truly saved millions of lives if the war had progressed as planned with land invasions. It’s the utility argument and if you understand the utility argument, you’ll understand why there has to be pain in Iraq (and in radical Islam) before there can be peace. You have to be willing to sacrifice something to get something better. If you understand that, you will understand US policy and why it’s based on long precedence. That is why they call the Atomic bomb a weapon of peace. Surely you remember MAD (mutual assured destruction) during the Cold War. The atomic bomb kept the war and the body count to almost zero during this period. It was the greatest peace keeping weapon because we all feared it. Fear is the only thing that has kept Islam in check (see Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein). I’ve lived in the Middle East and I understand the mentality.