AHHHHHH WHY IS IT THIS IS STILL AN ISSUE DESPITE MANY DEFINITIVE REPORTS BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT ALL SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM. HE HAD NEITHER WMDs NOR ACTIVE WMD PROGRAMS. HE WOULD NOT HAVE THEM NOW. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What do you think those parts of the nuclear program buried in the scientists garden were there for?
No rational person doubt that Saddam HAD WMD at one point and would have most likely restarted his program once he had the chance.
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What do you think those parts of the nuclear program buried in the scientists garden were there for?
No rational person doubt that Saddam HAD WMD at one point and would have most likely restarted his program once he had the chance.
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.
AHHHHHH WHY IS IT THIS IS STILL AN ISSUE DESPITE MANY DEFINITIVE REPORTS BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT ALL SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM. HE HAD NEITHER WMDs NOR ACTIVE WMD PROGRAMS. HE WOULD NOT HAVE THEM NOW. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What do you think those parts of the nuclear program buried in the scientists garden were there for?
No rational person doubt that Saddam HAD WMD at one point and would have most likely restarted his program once he had the chance.
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.
AHHHHHH WHY IS IT THIS IS STILL AN ISSUE DESPITE MANY DEFINITIVE REPORTS BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT ALL SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM. HE HAD NEITHER WMDs NOR ACTIVE WMD PROGRAMS. HE WOULD NOT HAVE THEM NOW. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I'm pretty sure your keyboard has a caps lock key. It should be on the left side, and might have a nice green LED on it. The LED is likely on.
It shouldn't.
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What do you think those parts of the nuclear program buried in the scientists garden were there for?
No rational person doubt that Saddam HAD WMD at one point and would have most likely restarted his program once he had the chance.
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.
AHHHHHH WHY IS IT THIS IS STILL AN ISSUE DESPITE MANY DEFINITIVE REPORTS BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT ALL SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM. HE HAD NEITHER WMDs NOR ACTIVE WMD PROGRAMS. HE WOULD NOT HAVE THEM NOW. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I'm pretty sure your keyboard has a caps lock key. It should be on the left side, and might have a nice green LED on it. The LED is likely on.
It shouldn't.
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What do you think those parts of the nuclear program buried in the scientists garden were there for?
No rational person doubt that Saddam HAD WMD at one point and would have most likely restarted his program once he had the chance.
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.
AHHHHHH WHY IS IT THIS IS STILL AN ISSUE DESPITE MANY DEFINITIVE REPORTS BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT ALL SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM. HE HAD NEITHER WMDs NOR ACTIVE WMD PROGRAMS. HE WOULD NOT HAVE THEM NOW. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I'm pretty sure your keyboard has a caps lock key. It should be on the left side, and might have a nice green LED on it. The LED is likely on.
It shouldn't.
Originally posted by: teclis1023
I tend to vote Democrat and consider myself a Progressive, and I have no doubt that Saddam, at least sometime in the past decade both developed and stored WMDs of some sort. I see this speculation as unrelated to the validity of the current war in Iraq. I guess my feelings come from the following:
- Saddam used gas on the Kurds, proving both willingness and intent to use WMDs
- Saddam invaded Kuwait, proving willingness and ability to demonstrate hostile action toward other nation-states
- Saddam continually rebuffed inspectors for the better part of a decade, despite global directives commanding his cooperation. This seems fishy to me.
I'm not condoning or condemning the current conflict, but I certainly don't believe that Saddam wasn't WMD-armed.
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What do you think those parts of the nuclear program buried in the scientists garden were there for?
No rational person doubt that Saddam HAD WMD at one point and would have most likely restarted his program once he had the chance.
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.
AHHHHHH WHY IS IT THIS IS STILL AN ISSUE DESPITE MANY DEFINITIVE REPORTS BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT ALL SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM. HE HAD NEITHER WMDs NOR ACTIVE WMD PROGRAMS. HE WOULD NOT HAVE THEM NOW. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I'm pretty sure your keyboard has a caps lock key. It should be on the left side, and might have a nice green LED on it. The LED is likely on.
It shouldn't.
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Jesus took the WMDs to heaven to keep them from being used.....
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Tango
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
What do you think those parts of the nuclear program buried in the scientists garden were there for?
No rational person doubt that Saddam HAD WMD at one point and would have most likely restarted his program once he had the chance.
The only unanswered question is what happened to all the WMD prior to the invasion.
AHHHHHH WHY IS IT THIS IS STILL AN ISSUE DESPITE MANY DEFINITIVE REPORTS BY OUR OWN GOVERNMENT THAT ALL SAID HE DIDN'T HAVE THEM. HE HAD NEITHER WMDs NOR ACTIVE WMD PROGRAMS. HE WOULD NOT HAVE THEM NOW. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I'm pretty sure your keyboard has a caps lock key. It should be on the left side, and might have a nice green LED on it. The LED is likely on.
It shouldn't.
No LED on mine, but if ANY topic deserves all caps it's this one. Okay, maybe the anti evolution threads too.
At this point this argument is so stupid, so drawn out, and so insane that it makes me crazy... all caps perfectly shows just how tired I am of idiots saying "hurf blurf WMDs!" as if somehow it hasn't been verified by multiple independant agencies and approximately 150,000 US troops combing his country that he didn't have them and that he had no meaningful active programs to make them any time soon. Hell, even Bush's stupid ass admits he didn't have them and there's nobody more invested in this godforsaken war then he is.
Originally posted by: eits
my statement was in reference to the world... not just the united states. also, the iraq war started 4 years ago. you just posted stuff that's happened in the past 28 years... great job.Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.
Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.
wrong, you're the idiot... the world is DEFINITELY more chaotic and out of control than it was whenever saddam was in power. our country's economy wouldn't be the hole it is now, we wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers dead, we wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq, there wouldn't be a growing number of terrorists, we'd have more friends in the world...
Really? Can you please list list the attacks on America post 9/11 for me? I see the list pre 9/11 is pretty long it must have continued afterwards no? Especially now since the enemies of our country hate us more now? Please list them.
1979: 8 dead before release of hostages in the Embassy in Tehran
April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.
April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).
December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996,
224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998
17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
Militant Islam attacks that took place on US soil:
July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.
August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.
August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.
September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.
January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.
November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.
February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.
January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.
February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.
March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.
February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.
October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.
by the way, saddam didn't have shit to do with almost all of those.
our country's economy
we wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers dead
we'd have more friends in the world[/quote]we wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: eits
based on the fact that YOU cited these "fact," chances are that they're completely taken out of context and are misleading as hell. that's your trademark... you fudge stuff bigtime. that's why taking stuff out of context to try and make an argument is called "pulling a pabster".
Well, look here.
With roll call here.
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate
Vote Summary
Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Measure Number: H.J.Res. 114
Measure Title: A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23
And in the HOR here, with roll call.
Got any facts?
Tell you what.
Since you are suggesting that Congress is in FACT Congress In Chief
Then let's let Congress pull the U.S. 110% out of Iraq right now.
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.
Do you know how easy it is to find traces of such an activity (it's impossible to hide, not virtually impossible, not almost impossible, IMPOSSIBLE)? He didn't have them and he didn't send them anywhere PERIOD.
I'd consider anyone who thinks anything different (that it wouldn't have been known and touted like hell from the propaganda machines of politics) to be as insane as the people who think the US intentionally brought down WTC.
And I consider anyone who ignore facts to the contrary to be a sympathizer. *shrug*
A sympathiser of what exactly? There are no facts to the contrary.
Would you like to answer this or are you just going to forget about it like others have when they tried to call me a traitor? Or make up some lame excuse for your statement like "i didn't mean you are a traitor, i never said the exact word" like others?
He didn't have them and he didn't send them anywhere PERIOD.
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.
Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.
Then I guess you can accuse me of being an idiot. The population of Iraq is made up of tribes. These tribes are represented and incited to hatred by ancient grudges and corrupt leaders. These dynamic forces, aligned against each other, were kept in check by Saddam's ruthless hand. Removing the containment by Saddam has led, predictably, to carnage and chaos that will probably outlive us all.
Btw, if we cared about Genocide, we'd have invaded the Sudan. If we cared about WMDs, we'd have invaded North Korea, who has TESTED them repeatedly in our faces. If we cared about installing democracy, we'd be in all corners of the globe overthrowing governments wholesale. If we cared about fighting AQ, we'd invade Pakistan full-scale, starting with Pashtun and the NW territory. Nope, none of the so-called 'excuses' hold water, just hot air from the morons on the left and right who buy into their self-serving BS. I'm no partisan on this either, I'll call ANYone who supported the half-baked lies leading up to this fiasco for the frauds that they are, Clinton, Bush, etc. To add insult to injury, why was Shinseki PUBLICLY humiliated and marginalized for suggesting a large force would be required for a maintenance of stability after Saddam's fall? By arseholes who'd never seen a day of combat IN THEIR LIVES? These are the same people who tell us 'we listen to the generals' even to this day. Fact is, they fire the generals who don't tell them what's politically expedient, which means they have to tote the party line or get canned.
Nope, Iraq was about robbing the American citizen, at the cost of our global reputation, several thousand valiant soldiers (I salute them for their sacrifice and fortitude in the midst of a horrible situation), and at least a trillion dollars before the game is over.
Will Iraq be as stable in 2012 as it was in 2002? NOT_A_CHANCE.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Arkaign
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.
Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.
Then I guess you can accuse me of being an idiot. The population of Iraq is made up of tribes. These tribes are represented and incited to hatred by ancient grudges and corrupt leaders. These dynamic forces, aligned against each other, were kept in check by Saddam's ruthless hand. Removing the containment by Saddam has led, predictably, to carnage and chaos that will probably outlive us all.
Btw, if we cared about Genocide, we'd have invaded the Sudan. If we cared about WMDs, we'd have invaded North Korea, who has TESTED them repeatedly in our faces. If we cared about installing democracy, we'd be in all corners of the globe overthrowing governments wholesale. If we cared about fighting AQ, we'd invade Pakistan full-scale, starting with Pashtun and the NW territory. Nope, none of the so-called 'excuses' hold water, just hot air from the morons on the left and right who buy into their self-serving BS. I'm no partisan on this either, I'll call ANYone who supported the half-baked lies leading up to this fiasco for the frauds that they are, Clinton, Bush, etc. To add insult to injury, why was Shinseki PUBLICLY humiliated and marginalized for suggesting a large force would be required for a maintenance of stability after Saddam's fall? By arseholes who'd never seen a day of combat IN THEIR LIVES? These are the same people who tell us 'we listen to the generals' even to this day. Fact is, they fire the generals who don't tell them what's politically expedient, which means they have to tote the party line or get canned.
Nope, Iraq was about robbing the American citizen, at the cost of our global reputation, several thousand valiant soldiers (I salute them for their sacrifice and fortitude in the midst of a horrible situation), and at least a trillion dollars before the game is over.
Will Iraq be as stable in 2012 as it was in 2002? NOT_A_CHANCE.
NK has WMD's? No proof of that whatsoever. All we see is a bunch of shit paraded through the streets. Who knows whats in em. At least we KNOW Iraq had them.
WILKERSON: He had walked into my office musing and he said words to the effect of, I wonder how we'll all feel if we put half a million troops in Iraq and march from one end of the country to the other and find nothing.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eits
my statement was in reference to the world... not just the united states. also, the iraq war started 4 years ago. you just posted stuff that's happened in the past 28 years... great job.
by the way, saddam didn't have shit to do with almost all of those.
First of all I never mentioned Saddam. Dont lead in that direction. Second, how was I supposed to know youre reference was to the worl when you say things likeour country's economywe wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers deadwe'd have more friends in the worldwe wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.
Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.
wrong, you're the idiot... the world is DEFINITELY more chaotic and out of control than it was whenever saddam was in power. our country's economy wouldn't be the hole it is now, we wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers dead, we wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq, there wouldn't be a growing number of terrorists, we'd have more friends in the world...
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Well, technically he's right. He *did* have them, we just dont know when and where he sent them.
Do you know how easy it is to find traces of such an activity (it's impossible to hide, not virtually impossible, not almost impossible, IMPOSSIBLE)? He didn't have them and he didn't send them anywhere PERIOD.
I'd consider anyone who thinks anything different (that it wouldn't have been known and touted like hell from the propaganda machines of politics) to be as insane as the people who think the US intentionally brought down WTC.
And I consider anyone who ignore facts to the contrary to be a sympathizer. *shrug*
A sympathiser of what exactly? There are no facts to the contrary.
Would you like to answer this or are you just going to forget about it like others have when they tried to call me a traitor? Or make up some lame excuse for your statement like "i didn't mean you are a traitor, i never said the exact word" like others?
He didn't have them and he didn't send them anywhere PERIOD.
Looks sympathetic to me when you ignore the facts that show your comments are wrong.
[/quote]Originally posted by: eitsOriginally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eits
my statement was in reference to the world... not just the united states. also, the iraq war started 4 years ago. you just posted stuff that's happened in the past 28 years... great job.
by the way, saddam didn't have shit to do with almost all of those.
First of all I never mentioned Saddam. Dont lead in that direction. Second, how was I supposed to know youre reference was to the worl when you say things likeour country's economywe wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers deadwe'd have more friends in the worldwe wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq
you were CLEARLY talking about the USA. Quit dodging.
pabster said the world was better off... i said that it was not. i alluded to both in my post.
you were clearly doing a bad job at keeping up with the nests. quit sucking.
note how i said the world wasn't better off. also, note how i said that places around the WORLD are being bombed because of our involvement (in other words, we are the cause to the effect around the world).
so, in my post, i made it pretty obvious and clear that pabster was wrong in his assessment that, a) americans aren't safer and, b) the world isn't safer.
saddam had nothing to do with global terrorism or 9/11 or anything... so, to think that we're safer because he's out is like saying you're safer at home because you got rid of your microwave.
PROOF:
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.
Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.
wrong, you're the idiot... the world is DEFINITELY more chaotic and out of control than it was whenever saddam was in power. our country's economy wouldn't be the hole it is now, we wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers dead, we wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq, there wouldn't be a growing number of terrorists, we'd have more friends in the world...
there you go... proof that i was talking about the world and the united states and your reading comprehension blows... in perfect cursive... anymore brain busters?
+1 for the Billy Madison reference.Originally posted by: Sinsear
Originally posted by: eitsOriginally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eits
my statement was in reference to the world... not just the united states. also, the iraq war started 4 years ago. you just posted stuff that's happened in the past 28 years... great job.
by the way, saddam didn't have shit to do with almost all of those.
First of all I never mentioned Saddam. Dont lead in that direction. Second, how was I supposed to know youre reference was to the worl when you say things likeour country's economywe wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers deadwe'd have more friends in the worldwe wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq
you were CLEARLY talking about the USA. Quit dodging.
pabster said the world was better off... i said that it was not. i alluded to both in my post.
you were clearly doing a bad job at keeping up with the nests. quit sucking.
note how i said the world wasn't better off. also, note how i said that places around the WORLD are being bombed because of our involvement (in other words, we are the cause to the effect around the world).
so, in my post, i made it pretty obvious and clear that pabster was wrong in his assessment that, a) americans aren't safer and, b) the world isn't safer.
saddam had nothing to do with global terrorism or 9/11 or anything... so, to think that we're safer because he's out is like saying you're safer at home because you got rid of your microwave.
PROOF:
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.
Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.
wrong, you're the idiot... the world is DEFINITELY more chaotic and out of control than it was whenever saddam was in power. our country's economy wouldn't be the hole it is now, we wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers dead, we wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq, there wouldn't be a growing number of terrorists, we'd have more friends in the world...
there you go... proof that i was talking about the world and the united states and your reading comprehension blows... in perfect cursive... anymore brain busters?
Originally posted by: Sinsear
+1 for the Billy Madison reference.Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: eits
my statement was in reference to the world... not just the united states. also, the iraq war started 4 years ago. you just posted stuff that's happened in the past 28 years... great job.
by the way, saddam didn't have shit to do with almost all of those.
First of all I never mentioned Saddam. Dont lead in that direction. Second, how was I supposed to know youre reference was to the worl when you say things likeour country's economywe wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers deadwe wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraqyou were CLEARLY talking about the USA. Quit dodging.we'd have more friends in the world
pabster said the world was better off... i said that it was not. i alluded to both in my post.
you were clearly doing a bad job at keeping up with the nests. quit sucking.
note how i said the world wasn't better off. also, note how i said that places around the WORLD are being bombed because of our involvement (in other words, we are the cause to the effect around the world).
so, in my post, i made it pretty obvious and clear that pabster was wrong in his assessment that, a) americans aren't safer and, b) the world isn't safer.
saddam had nothing to do with global terrorism or 9/11 or anything... so, to think that we're safer because he's out is like saying you're safer at home because you got rid of your microwave.
PROOF:
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: blackangst1
This has been discussed ad nauseum. We didnt know it was faulty AT THE TIME. And apperantly you, as usual, forget just as many lefties believed it as righties.
Typical. They're so busy trying to rewrite history and pretend they never voted to pay any attention to the here and now. Hindsight is always 20/20. Anyone who says the USA (and, indeed, the world) isn't better off without Saddam is an idiot.
wrong, you're the idiot... the world is DEFINITELY more chaotic and out of control than it was whenever saddam was in power. our country's economy wouldn't be the hole it is now, we wouldn't have nearly as many soldiers dead, we wouldn't have extremists going around to various countries blowing shit up because their country supported america's unjust war in iraq, there wouldn't be a growing number of terrorists, we'd have more friends in the world...
there you go... proof that i was talking about the world and the united states and your reading comprehension blows... in perfect cursive... anymore brain busters?
-1 for we're the enemy quip
0 your total score