Comments Posted By Sgt Thomas
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 21 Comments
SCIENTIFIC DEBUNKING OF LANCET STUDY: DOES IT REALLY MATTER?
Did you know that Baghdad's 40 year old amusement park was able to re-open thanks to the Security Strategy?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qHs-B2ZunMc
I have no problem with the media reporting the negatives, but why does the majority of the media ignore these positive stories?
Comment Posted By Sgt Thomas On 26.07.2007 @ 00:17
The majority of Iraqis are peaceful who are only worried about their families safety and future. The don't want to "fight". The minority of blood thirsty terrorists and insurgents are the ones terrorizing the majority.
But noone can deny that Iraqis opened their arms to Democracy by 12 million strong. Did they have unrealistic expectations of Democracy being a magic wand? Yes.
al-Qaeda threatened Iraqis with BEHEADING if they voted and were caught with ink on their fingers! How did 12 million Iraqis respond?
Do these people look like they want to pick up an AK47 and "fight"? No, but did they "fight" for their freedom by showing up to vote under threat of death? YES!!!!!!
The "Peace Liberls" that want to abandon these innocent Iraqis to Genocide by the terrorists makes me sick.
http://blog.espen.net/blog2/blogs/media/story.children.vote.jpg
http://www.comcast.net/data/br/2005/12/13/br-20580.jpg
http://www.theodoresworld.net/pcfreezone/voteiniraq.jpg
Is Iraq getting better and is the new security strategy working? Yes. Do the majority of Iraqis apprecaite our American Soldier's sacrifices? Yes.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=r3FEtGdDAGc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bULtkhXciSo
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6kWVgrRR8ZU
Why did ABC News do this story once and never follow up about all the successes the Surge has already seen?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=S5m0q1MlQOwDid you know Iraq has Boy Scouts? Did you know with the new security strategy Iraqi Boys were able to have their first Jamboree?
Even though our treasonous media ignored the U.S. Military was there to film it:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dH80g_Mkin0
Comment Posted By Sgt Thomas On 26.07.2007 @ 00:13
ANTI-WAR PROTEST: WHERE IS EVERYONE?
Pug,
YOU are a typical uninformed Lefty, who believes what they want.
CNN did an exit poll on the top issues to American voters. The Iraq War wasn't #1, the Iraq War wasn't #2, the Iraq War wasn't the #3 issue to voters.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/07/election.exitpolls/
"Asked which issues were extremely important to their vote, 42 percent said corruption and ethics; 40 percent, terrorism; 39 percent, the economy; 37 percent, Iraq; 36 percent, values; and 29 percent, illegal immigration."So the Iraq War was the #4 issue to voters. NOT even close to the most important.
#1. 42 percent said corruption and ethics;
#2. 40 percent, terrorism;
#3. 39 percent the economy;
#4. 37 percent, Iraq;
#4 36 percent, values;
#5 29 percent, illegal immigration.The majority of American voted for Conservative and Moderate Democrats that the DNC realized they needed to win the majority.
This isn't the mindless 70s Pug. No matter how badly you want it to be.
New York Times: "Democrats run to the Right"
"In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party."
http://rightdemocrat.blogspot.com/2006/10/ny-times-democrats-run-to-right.htmlCONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS, many who campaigned on not withdrawing from the Iraq War, were elected by Americans. NOT your anti-war Lefty politicians in your 1070s la la mind.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15736316/
"Conservative Blue Dog Democrats howl in victory"
Coalition Will Grow to 44 Members Strong in 110th Congresshttp://rightdemocrat.blogspot.com/2006/11/blue-dog-democrats-take-9-us-house.html
Ironically the election of so many Conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats has put anti-war Liberal Democrats into positions of power in our government, but that wasn't what the majority of AMERICANS voted for.
Comment Posted By Sgt Thomas On 28.01.2007 @ 13:06
Intellectually dishonest talking points. Tim Robbins called for the impeachment of Bush and said, He also said, "Bush would end his presidency in a bunker, as did Adolf Hitler."
http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2007/01/dc_protest_sugg.html
Or nifty slogans like "Just Poop" is what the left of America is today?
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24169_New_Anti-War_Slogan-_Just_Poop&only
:) The anti-war movement has laid a big turd. :)
Comment Posted By Sgt Thomas On 27.01.2007 @ 18:39
Jonathan,
Actually, my personal opinion, is that Bush is an idiot.
I am just pointing out that Demcrats stated the same thing in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 before dummy Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001.
Many mistakes have been made in managing the war and any less military would have folded long ago, but not the U.S. Military.
If we win in Iraq it will be due to the men and women serving in the U.S. Military overcoming all the mistakes not due to Bush.
I just don't like the Democrats trying to change history and put it all on Bush and imply he "lied" us into Iraq.
After 9/11 the threat of al-Qaeda flying a plane filled with chemical weapons is a real threat.
I also belive if Iraq can become a strong Arab-Democracy Liberal and Moderate Arabs will have a chance to defeat Radical Isalmists. Freedom and Democracy gives them a chance...oppression does not.
That's my belief anyway. :)
Comment Posted By Sgt Thomas On 16.01.2007 @ 23:07
http://www.oldamericancentury.org/downloads/1998-08-20-clinton.htm
"And so, this morning, based on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, I ordered our Armed Forces to take action to counter an immediate threat from the bin Laden network.
Earlier today, the United States carried out simultaneous strikes against terrorist facilities and infrastructure in Afghanistan.
Our forces targeted one of the most active terrorist bases in the world. It contained key elements of the bin Laden network’s infrastructure and has served as a training camp for literally thousands of terrorists from around the globe.
We have reason to believe that a gathering of key terrorist leaders was to take place there today, thus underscoring the urgency of our actions.Our forces also attacked a factory in Sudan associated with the bin Laden network. The factory was involved in the production of materials for chemical weapons."
Comment Posted By Sgt Thomas On 15.01.2007 @ 01:48
Jonathan,
Here is the 1998 New York Times link:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082598attack-rdp.html
New York Times
August 25, 1998U.S. Says Iraq Aided Production of Chemical Weapons in Sudan
WASHINGTON —The United States believed that senior Iraqi scientists were helping to produce elements of the nerve agent VX at a factory in Khartoum that American cruise missiles destroyed last week, administration and intelligence officials said on Monday.
The evidence the administration has cited as justification for the attack consisted of a soil sample secretly obtained months ago outside the pharmaceutical factory, the Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries, the officials said. Officially the administration has refused to describe its evidence in any detail, or to say how it was obtained.
The sample contained a rare chemical that would require two more complex steps to be turned into VX, one of the deadliest nerve agents in existence, and the chemical, whose acronym is EMPTA, has no industrial uses. The United Nations and the United States have long agreed that Iraq is extremely skilled at many kinds of VX production, having worked for years to perfect the best process.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, also said there was evidence that senior Iraqi scientists had aided the efforts to make VX at that factory, and at another plant a couple of miles away.
The connection with Iraq emerged as a key part of the administration’s argument for why it was justified in launching cruise missiles at a plant in another country without any warning.
Comment Posted By Sgt Thomas On 15.01.2007 @ 01:34
Jonathan,
That is factually inaccurate. Your own link states, "In particular, reporters and some members of Congress were not convinced by the administration's evidence that the al-Shifa plant was involved in chemical-weapons production."
Republican leadership unanimously supported the bombing and attacks on al-Qaeda in 1998. The majority throwing the "wag the dog" scenario were reporters.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2006/09/the_truth_about.html
"I think the president did exactly the right thing," House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said of the bombing attacks. "By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists."
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks "appropriate and just,"
and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said "the American people stand united in the face of terrorism."
Gingrich dismissed any possibility that Clinton may have ordered the attacks to divert attention from the scandal. Instead, he said, there was an urgent need for a reprisal following the Aug. 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.
"Anyone who watched the film of the bombings, anyone who saw the coffins come home knows better than to question this timing," Gingrich said. "It was done as early as possible to send a message to terrorists across the globe that killing Americans has a cost. It has no relationship with any other activity of any kind."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm
"Sen. Orrin Hatch announcing his support of President Clinton's decision to strike against terrorist facilities in Sudan and Afghanistan. (AP)"
"Speaker Newt Gingrich has made it clear to me" that the attacks were necessary and appropriate, Galen said. "This is a time to put our nation's interests ahead of our political concerns. I am asking you to help your listeners, your friends, and your associates to look at this situation with the sober eyes it deserves."
Comment Posted By Sgt Thomas On 15.01.2007 @ 01:32
Jonathan,
When President Clinton attacked Iraq in 1998 he did not ask congress for a vote of approval to bomb Iraq for 4 days due to their "nuclear, chemical, and biological programs".
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/Compare that to President Bush who asked for approval from Democrats for the Iraq War.
Democrats were given chance to vote against attacking Iraq in 2002. The majority of Democrats and Republicans voted "YEA" for attacking Iraq:
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/Care to address the fact that the Clinton Administration specifically stated an alliance and cooperation in "VX gas weapons development" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda in 1998 and 1999?
Do you think that is an important factor to calculate into the decision to attack Iraq after 9/11?
Comment Posted By Sgt Thomas On 14.01.2007 @ 20:42
Here is he New York Times link:
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/world/africa/082598attack-rdp.html
Comment Posted By Sgt Thomas On 14.01.2007 @ 17:07
