But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. FO,G
Sorry to @RacistBannon for getting caught up in "semantics." I mean who should read their(?) own sources and be able to "understand" or "think and care" what is written?
Crazy. Fucking. Talk.
Good luck next time ol' chap. Just don't bring that weak ass shit again.
Comments
If you are going to take the time to dig up sources, at least make sure they back you up.
Neither the ST article re: McDermott's trip nor the Obama speech prove your earlier FS assertions.
Boovs hate facts
We're half way there and there might be some hope for you're dementia racked brain.
Please go back to your sources and cite the exact sentence(s) where "Democratic Senators and congressmen defended Saddam."
( @Dardanus and @AIRWOLF )
Fuck off. I proved everything I said. Your semantic games show the weakness of your argument
Crazy. Fucking. Talk.
Good luck next time ol' chap. Just don't bring that weak ass shit again.
I've been called names for years by losers who can't lay a glove (hahahaha) on my arguments