Comments on: 5 GIs Killed In Baghdad Attack

U.S. Soldiers On Foot Patrol Hit By Bomb; Blast Wounds Three Other Soldiers

[zoopster1]

j-whitman, I believe I requested PROOF. Not more accusations. Anyone can accuse. But takes diligent research to PROVE something. As for the accidental shootdowns, I remember at least one of those. But we recovered the crew, did we not? What if Saddam had shot one down instead? What if he had succeeded in taking a hostage? What would he have demanded in exchange for his safe return?

Personally, I would rather we went to war than even find ourselves ASKING those questions.

[liberalme]

The tension is killing me. Really.

Posted by zoopster1 at 06

After 911---it was believed Osama was in Afganistan--right?

We knew there were no weapons in Iraq--right?
We knew there were no terrorist training cells in Iraq--right?

We also knew Osama was not in Iraq--but Afganistan--right?

Sadam had NOTHING to do with 911--right?

Our focus was to go after the "tribe" that was responsible for 911--right?

911-911-911 Osama Bin Laden--NOT Sadam Hussein!!
Absolutely NO relationship there--911---Bin Laden.

Going after Hussein could have been another agenda--AFTER we caught Bin Laden!!---the 911 Bin Laden!!

Over 3000 American lives were lost because of Bin Laden--NOT Hussein!

More troops were sent to Iraq than Afganistan-WHY????

Where in the world is Bin Laden---Why are we in Iraq--Bin Laden is not and never was in Iraq!!

Where is Bin Laden---oh I don''t know--don''t think much about him---WHY????

Why have we not caught Bin Laden??????

The tension is really killing me!

[j-whitman]

zoopster1 ---You''re spinning hard --- Our own Patriot Missile Systems shot down at least 3 planes due to false target identification.... Condi Rice led Chevron into the biggest Oil For Food rip off to the tune of billions in Chevron profit & kickbacks to Saddam Hussein

[ajmarine1]

The tension is killing me. Really.

Posted by zoopster1 at 06:29 PM : Mar 10, 2008


I''ve said the same things you are saying, but everyone is set in what they believe and what they think is their version of the true and no one wants to change, no matter what is said one way or the other.

You do make your points very well though.

[zoopster1]

OK then. I await with baited breath as you present the evidence of this intentional deception that is so persuasive, that the Democrat Congress did not even ATTEMPT impeachment proceedings. I will be enthralled as you relate the CREDIBLE FACTS of how these guys already knew then all of the things that are now public 5 YEARS LATER, and yet they launched the invasion anyway. I want to know why we proceeded with an armed assault against a dictator who should have been deposed in 1991 as part of Desert Storm, when we could have just kept troops based in Saudi Arabia (even though UBL listed that as item #1 on his declaration of war against us), kept sanctions up forever (that was item #3 on UBL''s declaration), allowed Saddam''s troops to take potshots at our planes EVERY DAY until he got lucky enough to shoot one down and take the pilot hostage. Oh yeah, and let''s not forget the $25,000 to $30,000 checks he was writing to Palestinian suicide bombers, while his own people couldn''t get food or medicine. Or a UN oil program that was so corrupt that Saddam''s government was getting very wealthy off it, even though they were supposed to be the ones meant to suffer under it.

The tension is killing me. Really.

[joyous88]

living under protection, what are you talking about?

we pay taxes our entire lives than have to listen to a bunch of morons disquised as republiCONs tell us getting some of it back is some kind of government welfare, but that it is Ok to have all the corporate welfare and corporate tax breaks we can create.

so you clowns can waste our money and yes waste the lives of these soldiers of your war profiteering sceme?

protection for whom?

[harrydoghiny]

Now you people know a governor getting a hummer is more important than any casualties in Iraq. Move along, nothing to see here...

[bobnjersey]

[You can be suspicious of motives and actions all you want. That is your prerogative. But suspicion is not proof. Accusation is also not proof. And what I have seen so far qualifies only as mistakes. Errors. Blunders even. But without evidence of intent, they were not lies.]
[Posted by zoopster1 at 05:52 PM : Mar 10, 2008]

so there was no intent to convince the electorate that war w/ iraq is justified ... all while knowing they wouldn''t be able to do that w/ currently available ''fact''?

what is it called when you incessantly repeat the following words/phrases in the same context?

al queda, iraq, saddam, 9/11, terrorists, wmd, smoking gun, mushroom cloud, nuc-u-lar, yellow cake, aluminum tubes.

[liberalme]

It is simply amazing to me how many LIBS on here have a problem with that statement. LIBS don''''t deserve the protection they live under. Bunch of ingrates." --

Posted by mbcsmith at 05:13 PM : Mar 10, 2008

What protection are we living under?

With all the technology our government has---illegal wiretapping--800,000 names on the FBI terror watch list and an article out last week stating DHS hasn;t met goals---then Bush comes out and says if we don''t let they wiretap (illegally) we will be attacked worse than 911!!

How does he know that? What has this government done with the plethora of information they have gathered?

Do I feel protected? Not by a long shot--especially with our own "president" threating a disaster worse than 911---mind boggling!

[j-whitman]

zoopster1,,,, Currently in Iraq you can judge McCain''s lies :

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Al-Qaeda may be shifting tactics back to the big, headline grabbing attacks in Iraq that helped plunge the country into chaos, a senior US commander said Monday.

"We have some indicators that they may be planning on executing kind of a large media type event," said Major General John Kelly, commander of the I Marine Expeditionary Force in western Iraq.