First, you, like Mum, dont have the qualifications to judge wether a military operation was Conducted properly

Second, Clark And Zinni had nothing to do with Iraq. They are LIBERAL TRAITORS who TRASH OUR BRAVE TROOPS for POLITICAL REASONS.

Thirdly, You are trolls and if Soldiers mum was at all interested in MODERATING you would be BANNED.

Layla 27 wrote:Second, Clark And Zinni had nothing to do with Iraq. They are LIBERAL TRAITORS
.

Ultracon, I rest my case.   Troop loving right wing MY A$$.  only if they are right wing zombies with no opinions of their own. Once they cross Gods chosen leader of the world, they are traitors.

Layla, what about Kerry, Powell, Webb, all the troops at  VoteVets.org?  Like Jon Soltz, Paul Hackett, and General John Batiste. I could go on and on.

Layla 27 wrote:pEOPLE LIKE YOU WHO DEFEND politicians BEFORE OUR troops ARE REALLY DISGUSTING.

LOL, did not even see this.  Hillarious.  Hoisted by her own petard !!

Layla 27 wrote: Clark And Zinni had nothing to do with Iraq. They are LIBERAL TRAITORS

the Yeti wrote:

Layla 27 wrote:
Second, Clark And Zinni had nothing to do with Iraq. They are LIBERAL TRAITORS
.

Ultracon, I rest my case.   Troop loving right wing MY A$$.  only if they are right wing zombies with no opinions of their own. Once they cross Gods chosen leader of the world, they are traitors.

Layla, what about Kerry, Powell, Webb, all the troops at  VoteVets.org?  Like Jon Soltz, Paul Hackett, and General John Batiste. I could go on and on.

IF YOU TRASH OUR MILITRAY FOR POLITICAL ENDS I DONT CARE WHO YOU ARE

JOHN KERRY:
There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant [William] Calley, are war criminals.


I would LIKE TO POINT OUT that JOHN KERRY had NOTHING TO DO with THE CALLEY INCIDENT. He was MAKING BIG MONEY and BIG FAME  USING the incident to HUMILIAQTE OUR MEN AND WOMEN fighting in VIETNAM and AVOID SERVICE by DONING SO.  If it were up to KERRY, we would all HAVE BELIEVED our TROOPS WERE ALL BLOODY KILLERS of CHILDREN.

That is all your "HERIOC" HIPPIES were. a bunch of WORTHLESS COWARDS who wanted to AVOID FIGHTING.

Here are some more gems form KERRY, who DENIES that there were weapons of MASS DISTRUCTION, and MYSTERIOUSLY SUPPORTED the war UNTIL it WA POLITICALLY INCONVIENENT:

We must recognize that there is no indication that Saddam Hussein has any intention of relenting. So we have an obligation of enormous consequence, an obligation to guarantee that Saddam Hussein cannot ignore the United Nations. He cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction.

• Speech to the floor of the Senate, Congressional Record, November 9, 1997 [1]

If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.

• New York Times op-ed, September 6, 2002 [2]

I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.

• Senate Debate,  October 9, 2002

the Yeti wrote:

Layla 27 wrote:
Second, Clark And Zinni had nothing to do with Iraq. They are LIBERAL TRAITORS
.

Ultracon, I rest my case.   Troop loving right wing MY A$$.  only if they are right wing zombies with no opinions of their own. Once they cross Gods chosen leader of the world, they are traitors.

Layla, what about Kerry, Powell, Webb, all the troops at  VoteVets.org?  Like Jon Soltz, Paul Hackett, and General John Batiste. I could go on and on.

POWELL?? If he is really against the war, which I doubt, I have a few little qoutes here:
"There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein has biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more, many more."

• Remarks to the United Nations Security Council on 2003-02-05. [1]

"The sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction ... And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq ... "

• press remarks with Foreign Minister of Egypt Amre Moussa, Ittihadiya Palace, Cairo, 2001-02-24[3]

And I will not encourage any more trolling. I wont respond to any further posts from you. Unless you have a time machine I really dont see how you can disprove any of those quotes.

Layla 27 wrote:And I will not encourage any more trolling. I wont respond to any further posts from you. Unless you have a time machine I really dont see how you can disprove any of those quotes.

Don't you see it yet?? YOU ARE THE TROLL !!! LOL

How is this WRONG ?? did these things NOT happen or are we all in a war induced haze??

JOHN KERRY:
There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50-caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down. And I believe that the men who designed these, the men who designed the free fire zone, the men who ordered us, the men who signed off the air raid strike areas, I think these men, by the letter of the law, the same letter of the law that tried Lieutenant [William] Calley, are war criminals.

not the troops carrying out the mission, the ones who CREATED THE MISSION AND THE PLAN TO IMPLEMENT THE MISSION. get it ??


I do love the cut and paste version of YOUR TRUTH. lets just take this on because it is the easiest to BURN YOU ON.

Your out of context version:

I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
Senate Debate,  October 9, 2002
the real version with all the context left in as per snopes.com and REALITY!!http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security. [SIZE=10pt]I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein. [SIZE=10pt]As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.''
[SIZE=10pt]
[SIZE=10pt]Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies.
[SIZE=10pt]In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out.
[SIZE=10pt]
[SIZE=10pt]If we do wind up going to war with Iraq , it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs.
[SIZE=10pt]
[SIZE=10pt]Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.
[SIZE=10pt]
[SIZE=10pt]In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.
[SIZE=10pt]The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq , and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions...
[SIZE=10pt]Senate Debate,  October 9, 2002
[SIZE=10pt]
[SIZE=10pt]missed a few lines did'nt you?? You have to be embarrassed. i know i am embarrassed for you.

Dont need a TIME MACHINE, Just a TRUTH MACHINE when dealing with you.

the Yeti wrote:Dont need a TIME MACHINE, Just a TRUTH MACHINE when dealing with you.

the Yeti = last bastian of truth in the civilized world.  How great it must be to be able to say anything without having to prove it, and then call it the truth!!  The rest of us have to sleep at night, so if it's all the same to you, let's stick with the facts, and tackle one 'truth' at a time.  Please don't start the typical defensive technique of changing the nature of the argument once you're proven wrong.  Lets start and finish one topic at a time please

ultracon wrote:

the Yeti wrote:Dont need a TIME MACHINE, Just a TRUTH MACHINE when dealing with you.

the Yeti = last bastian of truth in the civilized world.  How great it must be to be able to say anything without having to prove it, and then call it the truth!!  The rest of us have to sleep at night, so if it's all the same to you, let's stick with the facts, and tackle one 'truth' at a time.  Please don't start the typical defensive technique of changing the nature of the argument once you're proven wrong.  Lets start and finish one topic at a time please

What have i NOT poven?? why do you always FAIL to give examples of my lies??
I PROVED that Layla 27 LIED about what Kerry said, i proved that she and other far right wing sheep hate Liberal war heros. please enlighten me.  I am willing to finish one topic if you could add any substance to the debate.