Freepers on Iraq

[nolies32fouettes]

http://progressiveu.org/134516-words-in-freeperland-about-iraq

You'll want to read what they think!

(Please help me by copying the first four paragraphs and posting in a comment. I can not get past their 'read only' skin.)

[benddem]

1. 9/11 Redux

And MaineVoter2002 puts in his .02 for revenge. (Except MaineVoter obviously hasn't read the 9-11 commission report that said quite specifically that IRAQ WAS NOT INVOLVED in 9-11.)
"No pursuit into mosques without Iraqi troops.
Bomb the Mosque first. They started it,
I have no problem going Biblical on them.
I used to work at the WTC. I want a little payback."

[VaTF1]

8. I can sort of understand

Where MaineVoter2002 is coming from, I lost "brothers" at the WTC on 9/11. But, you are right about Iraq/Saddam having nothing to do with the attack on our shores that day. Why we diverted troops out of Afghanistan to Iraq and find ourselves in a more vulnerable position today, is beyond me. We have done nothing but purchased 2 countries, when we can't take care of our own, and have placed our young military personnel in a position where they have become nothing but "sitting ducks" for anyone who holds a grudge against our country.

Read Thomas Ricks "Fiasco", Bob Woodward's "State of Denial", and see how this president has utterly failed to ensure the safety of Americans in our own land.

[Sapere aude]

15. Welcome to DU

[spillthebeans]

12. They love the Pres and he is always right even if he is wrong

The reports describe
friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of
the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the ear-
lier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor
have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in devel-
oping or carrying out any attacks against the United States.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-83.html


President Bush had wondered immediately after the attack whether Saddam
Hussein's regime might have had a hand in it. Iraq had been an enemy of the
United States for 11 years, and was the only place in the world where the
United States was engaged in ongoing combat operations. As a former pilot,
the President was struck by the apparent sophistication of the operation and
some of the piloting, especially Hanjour's high-speed dive into the Pentagon.
He told us he recalled Iraqi support for Palestinian suicide terrorists as well.
Speculating about other possible states that could be involved, the President
told us he also thought about Iran.
http://www.faqs.org/docs/911/911Report-351.html

[nolies32fouettes]

16. Oy!!!

[nolies32fouettes]

2. there's much more! Also...I got this article from there too but

didn't waste time posting their comments:

http://progressiveu.org/133151-lobbyists-trying-to-make-friends-with-democrats

[nolies32fouettes]

10. ...

[nolies32fouettes]

17. kick

[baldguy]

3. The neocons have opened their history textbooks!

U.S. troops must leave Iraq--but not just yet, and not in the manner many Democrats have suggested. Islamists in general, and Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in particular, are always pointing to past U.S. military retreats--Vietnam in 1975, Lebanon in 1984, Somalia in 1994--as evidence that the American will to wage war invariably collapses as conflicts drag on. As a result, retreating from Iraq now would simply encourage Islamists to attack U.S. allies and targets throughout the world. Before it leaves Iraq, then, the United States must inflict a dramatic and decisive defeat upon the Sunni insurgents--one that will
demonstrate the unbearable cost and utter futility of the Islamist dream of establishing a Muslim umma under the rule of a global Sunni caliphate. That defeat must be more than military; it must also be political: The United States should divide Iraq into two parts, leaving the Kurds in control of the north, the Shia in control of the south--and the Sunnis stateless in between.

It's amazing that suddenly the neoconservatives remember LOST WARS when they should have been remembering these patterns BEFORE they went to war. It's not like anyone who didn't listen to 10 minutes of news wouldn't remember Saddam saying something about studying the Vietnam war and Somalia and as such, the Americans shouldn't attack his country.

Bush figured they toppled the statute, he stood under the mission accomplished sign, and that was all it took to win a war.

But in usual lala land known as Freeperville, they want to go in and bomb the h*ll out of Iraq.

more:
http://progressiveu.org/134516-words-in-freeperland-about-iraq

[nolies32fouettes]

7. thank you! they seem to WANT WWIII or armagetton (sp?)

[zreosumgame]

4. two issues with your post

A) 'think' hardly ever applies to a freeper

B) see point A

edited because sometimes I speel liok a freeper :silly:

[nolies32fouettes]

5. Good point. ;)

[twilight_sailing]

6. freepers IN Iraq,

that's the headline I'd like to read.

There is something particularly loathsome about these armchair quarterbacks.

[nolies32fouettes]

9. they certainly don't put their feet where their mouth is. Armchair soldiers

[11 Bravo]

11. You beat me to it.

Much like their simian hero, freepers are some gung-ho motherfuckers ... provided that someone else has to do the actual fighting.

[nolies32fouettes]

13. it's like Bush in Vietnam---30 years too late.

[yellowcanine]

14. Is that anything like snakes on a plane? No it isn't because snakes on a plane could happen.