OK "Perspective", are you sure you're not David Mayer?
Because you sound like him.
>The fact that Iraq never did account for 8,500 liters of anthrax, 19,000 liters of botulinim toxin, 2,200 liters of aflatoxin, and 25 Scud missiles tipped with these chemicals, all of which Iraq had previously ADMITTED to posessing, means nothing to you."
Well, it might, please show me a link for that.
>"Your statement that, "All our worries for our soldiers were groundless" is nothing short of obscene."
Well, it was meant to be sarcastic. Of course it was no cakewalk, but we all BELIEVED they were in great danger, that WE were in great danger.
>"Tell the families of the men and women that were protecting your right to come and post on this site that their worries were "groundless."
You know, it's people like YOU who are DANGEROUS.
The soldiers and their families all had their drama, but going into Iraq had NOTHING to do with my freedom or my right to free speech. Insinuating how I could DARE say that, reminds something of a school teacher who never got any, won't get any and has no hope of getting any!
Who would dare speak up and point her finger at me from her self-righteous point of view.
Don't be silly.
Your holier-than-thou patriotism just doesn't cut it with me.
Current Events » in reply to Re: Why War?
Re: Why War?
The whole thread (58 posts)
- Why War?
- Stop reading horse manure.
- Re: Why War?
- Re: Why Bother?
- Statements
- Nice Photo Op
- and the bullshit tide rises higher.
- P.S.
- Discourse?
- You and Lindy are the sheep in this thread. n/t (n/t)
- Statements
- Re: Why War?
- Re: Why Bother?
- Re: Why War?
- Re: Because it is effective . . .
- Why Lindy?
- Gawd, it's jest killin' you lefties, you were SO wrong n/t (n/t)
- Because war was the moral thing to do.
