Obama pleads for 7.5 billion for Pakistani bribe

[vurbano]

On TV right now asking congress for 1.5 billion per year for the next 5 years to payoff Pakistan. raise your hand if you want to donate. Hey nimrod!!! we are broke you moron!!!!!!!!!

I love how hitlery stands behind him looking around the room and slightly bobbing her head yes up and down.

[Madtown HD Junkie]

She is just thinking....how in the hell did I lose to this guy?

[cybok0]

But it's OK to spend more than $1.2 trillion for a war we never should of started?

At least he's trying to get Bin Laden, something Bush must of forgot about.

[msmith198025]

But it's OK to spend more than $1.2 trillion for a war we never should of started?

At least he's trying to get Bin Laden, something Bush must of forgot about.

To be fair Cy, everyone jumps on Bush for this war, but it is not like he just sent them. Everyone voted on it, and it was approved. Then saying we should not be there became the popular thing to do, and Bush was the scapegoat.

[Carl]

She is just thinking....how in the hell did I lose to this guy?

She lost cause he is better:)

[cybok0]

To be fair Cy, everyone jumps on Bush for this war, but it is not like he just sent them. Everyone voted on it, and it was approved. Then saying we should not be there became the popular thing to do, and Bush was the scapegoat.

They were dumb, IMO he went into Iraq to take revenge for his father.:026:

[msmith198025]

They were dumb, IMO he went into Iraq to take revenge for his father.:026:

I suppose that is possible, I just do not agree with it.

[cybok0]

I suppose that is possible, I just do not agree with it.

Most people here would agree with you.:05:

[vurbano]

But it's OK to spend more than $1.2 trillion for a war we never should of started?

At least he's trying to get Bin Laden, something Bush must of forgot about.

And spending this money to get Bin Laden gets us what exactly? DEADS BODIES AND NOTHING ELSE

[cybok0]

And spending this money to get Bin Laden gets us what exactly? DEADS BODIES AND NOTHING ELSE

The bastard that was responsible for killing innocent Americans.

[fallout2600]

He is NOT sending more troops to get Bin Laden, he is sending more troops and money to NATION-BUILD!!!!!!!!!

[vurbano]

The bastard that was responsible for killing innocent Americans.
It changes nothing. ANd then the next Al Queada leader takes over blows up another building because the Messiah has outlawed tire taps and we go chasing after him too?:augentreher:

[vurbano]

He is NOT sending more troops to get Bin Laden, he is sending more troops and money to NATION-BUILD!!!!!!!!!

Its gonna take a lot more to nation build afghanistan.

[cybok0]

It changes nothing. ANd then the next Al Queada leader takes over blows up another building because the Messiah has outlawed tire taps and we go chasing after him too?:augentreher:

Then all those people that died, there families should never see the person responsible get what's coming to him?

[vurbano]

Then all those people that died, there families should never see the person responsible get what's coming to him?
Not at the cost of thousands of soldiers lives. No

Afghan security forces: 4,336 killed

Northern Alliance:
200 killed
Coalition:
1,074 killed
4,105+ wounded Contractors:
93 killed
2,428 WIA

Total: 6,105 killed
6,533+ wounded



The US is not some GOD of the world with the ability to magically catch and punish at will. Get the SOB covertly if you can, Pay people if you have too. Clinton had him and refused to shoot. He also refused to take him on a silver platter even after he declared Jihad against the US.

[cybok0]

Not at the cost of thousands of soldiers lives. No

Afghan security forces: 4,336 killed

Northern Alliance:
200 killed
Coalition:
1,074 killed
4,105+ wounded Contractors:
93 killed
2,428 WIA

Total: 6,105 killed
6,533+ wounded



The US is not some GOD of the world with the ability to magically catch and punish at will. Get the SOB covertly if you can, Pay people if you have too. Clinton had him and refused to shoot. He also refused to take him on a silver platter even after he declared Jihad against the US.

But it was OK when Americans and Iraq's died in the Iraq war?

I remember you were all for the surge.

Plus lets not forget that Bush let his family leave the U.S. right after 9/11, actually one of the only few planes that were aloud to take off and leave.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34405

I'm not saying Clinton didn't mess up, but Bush isn't innocent either.

[msmith198025]

But it was OK when Americans and Iraq's died in the Iraq war?

I remember you were all for the surge.

Plus lets not forget that Bush let his family leave the U.S. right after 9/11, actually one of the only few planes that were aloud to take off and leave.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34405

I'm not saying Clinton didn't mess up, but Bush isn't innocent either.

No, no he is not. This mess with Bin Ladin has been building up for a while before anything really happend. Much like the economic crisis.

[msmith198025]

But it was OK when Americans and Iraq's died in the Iraq war?

I remember you were all for the surge.



Good point. Why was one ok, now it is not? What did you think we would accomplish in Iraq that was more important than afghanistan? Personally, I think both were good causes (based on what we thought we knew before going, and based on one less dictator in power now).

[vurbano]

But it was OK when Americans and Iraq's died in the Iraq war?

I remember you were all for the surge.



Of course. We freed an entire country from brutality and instituted a freely elected government. A country that continually violated UN sanctions against it and shot at our jet fighters provoking a war. And kicked Al Queada's ass as a side benefit. It was a winnable war and we accomplished that. I do not think Afghanistan is winnable. Besides, killing thousands of soldiers to get Bin Laden makes us no safer than before 9/11, another one will be appointed in minutes to fill his shoes on the other hand Bush's policies have proven to keep us safe. Take your pick.

[cybok0]

Of course. We freed an entire country from brutality and instituted a freely elected government. A country that continually violated UN sanctions against it and shot at our jet fighters provoking a war. And kicked Al Queada's ass as a side benefit. It was a winnable war and we accomplished that. I do not think Afghanistan is winnable. Besides, killing thousands of soldiers to get Bin Laden makes us no safer than before 9/11, another one will be appointed in minutes to fill his shoes on the other hand Bush's policies have proven to keep us safe. Take your pick.

Quite frankly, we(Americans), were safer from the threat of Iraq before we invaded Iraq. Saddam didn't have the capabilities or the onions to do anything against us. Plus you add in the factor that Saddam never let any terrorist into his country, plus many more people from the middle east joined a terrorist group because we invaded Iraq.

The citizen of Afghanistan was OK with us going after Bin Laden, but with all the crap we pulled with Iraq, they are now on the side of Bin Laden.

I will never understand why Bush had to be in two wars at the same time. His first mission should of been to go after Bin Laden, use all resources to get him.

Then when that was over, BTW with our intelligence, CIA and military, IMO if we would of concentrated on that Bin Laden would of been captured/killed, then he could of pushed for the invasion of Iraq.

But IMO he probably wouldn't of got the support that he did then, which then he couldn't of got the guy who threatened his daddy.:thinking-023::026:

[vurbano]

Quite frankly, we(Americans), were safer from the threat of Iraq before we invaded Iraq.




You couldnt be more wrong. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401245.html

The U.S. military believes it has dealt devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a declaration of victory over the group, which the Bush administration has long described as the most lethal U.S. adversary in Iraq.
The war in Iraq forced them to fight us there and we destroyed and crippled their infrastructure in doing so. Iraq is now one less place for AL Queada to operate.

[msmith198025]

You couldnt be more wrong. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/14/AR2007101401245.html

The war in Iraq forced them to fight us there and we destroyed and crippled their infrastructure in doing so. Iraq is now one less place for AL Queada to operate.

I agree. Things are (or could be) better in a couple of ways. We dealt a blow to Al Queada, and the Iraqi people have a real chance to govern themselves now, instead of having a brutal dictator rule with an iron fist. Maybe we have seen the end of mass graves there

[froggigger]

Quite frankly, we(Americans), were safer from the threat of Iraq before we invaded Iraq. Saddam didn't have the capabilities or the onions to do anything against us. Plus you add in the factor that Saddam never let any terrorist into his country, plus many more people from the middle east joined a terrorist group because we invaded Iraq.

The citizen of Afghanistan was OK with us going after Bin Laden, but with all the crap we pulled with Iraq, they are now on the side of Bin Laden.

I will never understand why Bush had to be in two wars at the same time. His first mission should of been to go after Bin Laden, use all resources to get him.

Then when that was over, BTW with our intelligence, CIA and military, IMO if we would of concentrated on that Bin Laden would of been captured/killed, then he could of pushed for the invasion of Iraq.

But IMO he probably wouldn't of got the support that he did then, which then he couldn't of got the guy who threatened his daddy.:thinking-023::026:

Abu Nidal died in Baghdad in August 2002. He's not a terrorist?

[cybok0]

The bottom-line: Saddam is not likely in the near future to hit the United States or share his weapons with al Qaeda or other anti-American terrorists, unless the United States assaults Iraq. This is hardly the picture the President is sharing with the American public.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames/119

[vurbano]

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/capitalgames/119
Your source is a blog?:augentreher:

Hold on one sec, I know some good blogs to post from. BTW before you open your trap sir, everything on S&L is referenced from real news sources.

[cybok0]

Your source is a blog?:augentreher:

Hold on one sec, I know some good blogs to post from. BTW before you open your trap sir, everything on S&L is referenced from real news sources.

It's OK when a thread is started that you like is from the same place?

http://www.sonicbabble.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1764&postcount=1

[vurbano]

It's OK when a thread is started that you like is from the same place?

http://www.sonicbabble.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1764&postcount=1
Did I state he had a valid source? Did he use it as some kind of proof in an arguement? NOPE.

[fallout2600]

Why are we debating Iraq still, the mission has moved to Afghanistan and Pakistan...

[cybok0]

Here you go.


The letter said "Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks" with conventional or chemical or biological weapons against the United States.

"Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist action," it continued. It noted that Mr. Hussein could use either conventional terrorism or a weapon of mass destruction as "his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him."

The letter dated Oct. 7 also declassified an exchange from a closed Congressional hearing on Oct. 2 in which a senior intelligence official judged the likelihood of Mr. Hussein's initiating an attack in the foreseeable future as "low."

Mr. Tenet said tonight that "there is no inconsistency" between the C.I.A. views in the letter and those of the president. He emphasized the Iraqi leader's use of such weapons against his own citizens.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/09/international/middleeast/09IRAQ.html

[vurbano]

Poor confused Cybok. The war in Iraq was about UN violations and an act of war by Iraq shooting at our planes as well as His proven possession and past use of biological weapons. There was an Al Queada tie and they trained in his country. I do think that US soil was in danger of being attacked by Saddam by some bioweapon . The danger was also the hysteria he created in the middle east. We are far safer now than before. If you have evidence against that then present it.

you think ending the wiretaps, closing Gitmo and releasing terrorists on our streets when so many go right back to terrorism makes us safer? You need your head examined.

[cybok0]

Poor confused Cybok. The war in Iraq was about UN violations and an act of war by Iraq shooting at our planes as well as His proven possession and past use of biological weapons. There was an Al Queada tie and they trained in his country. I do think that US soil was in danger of being attacked by Saddam by some bioweapon . The danger was also the hysteria he created in the middle east. We are far safer now than before. If you have evidence against that then present it.

you think ending the wiretaps, closing Gitmo and releasing terrorists on our streets when so many go right back to terrorism makes us safer? You need your head examined.

I never said closing Gitmo was good, that was Bob. I think it's a dumb move.

I never thought once that he would do anything against the U.S. at least on U.S. soil. He had a hard enough time hitting Israel with scud missiles.

[msmith198025]

I never said closing Gitmo was good, that was Bob. I think it's a dumb move.

I never thought once that he would do anything against the U.S. at least on U.S. soil. He had a hard enough time hitting Israel with scud missiles.

I agree about Gitmo. It should stay open!

Sure, he couldnt hit us here when we invaded. Most countries do not have that capability. He was dangerous enough where he was however, to his own people, and to anyone we had in the area, and do not think for a second he would hesitate at all if he COULD have hit us here. I put him in line with that nutjob in Iran for that, or N. Korea for that.

[fallout2600]

As long as the war on terror is active, Gitmo should be open. Its a WAR.

[vurbano]

As long as the war on terror is active, Gitmo should be open. Its a WAR.Its a secret war now dontcha know?:augentreher: