Can anyone tell me what is very wrong with this?

[buzzsawBeaver 12]

By executive order, president Barack Obama has ordered the expenditure

of $20.3 million in migration assistance to the Palestinian refugees and

conflict victims in Gaza.

 

[Federal Register: February 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 22)]

[Presidential Documents]

[Page 6115]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access []

[DOCID:fr04fe09-106]

Presidential Documents

[[Page 6115]]

Presidential Determination No. 2009-15 of January 27, 2009

Unexpected Urgent Refugee and Migration Needs

Related To Gaza

Memorandum for the Secretary of State

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and

the laws of the United States, including section

2©(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of

1962 (the ``Act''), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601), I

hereby determine, pursuant to section 2©(1) of the

Act, that it is important to the national interest to

furnish assistance under the Act in an amount not to

exceed $20.3 million from the United States Emergency

Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for the purpose

of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration

needs, including by contributions to international,

governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and

payment of administrative expenses of Bureau of

Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department

of State, related to humanitarian needs of Palestinian

refugees and conflict victims in Gaza.

You are authorized and directed to publish this

memorandum in the Federal Register.

 

(Presidential Sig.)

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, January 27, 2009

[bucfan64 309]

Where was this refugee MONEY when Katrina Hit?

 

and now due the economic CRISIS that we are in, The President finds it necessary to send 20.3 million to Palestine!

 

This guy is constantly grandstanding, Barack Obama is a JOKE!

[fieldgeneral 10]

Where was this refugee MONEY when Katrina Hit?

 

and now due the economic CRISIS that we are in, The President finds it necessary to send 20.3 million to Palestine!

 

This guy is constantly grandstanding, Barack Obama is a JOKE!

 

Why weren't you complaining about Bush with Katrina? What about the billions spent in Iraq over the past several years that was not needed to fight the war on terror? Come on now, Obama is in a tough place and doing what he things is right to help the economy, it may and it may not, but he didn't put us in this place. It has been happening for a long time, but the last 8 years just pushed us over the edge. Don't blame Obama, 20 million is pocket change compared to what has been wasted the past 8.

[JamesL_CcLB34 10]

yea but he is supporting palestine.. i guess there isn't anything wrong with that but he better keep supporting israel or i'm moving to the north pole...

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

yea but he is supporting palestine.. i guess there isn't anything wrong with that but he better keep supporting israel or i'm moving to the north pole...

 

Thats why it was so wrong.

 

Palestine is controlled by Hamas. Not a smart move at all, simply because it doesnt gain us anything.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Why weren't you complaining about Bush with Katrina? What about the billions spent in Iraq over the past several years that was not needed to fight the war on terror? Come on now, Obama is in a tough place and doing what he things is right to help the economy, it may and it may not, but he didn't put us in this place. It has been happening for a long time, but the last 8 years just pushed us over the edge. Don't blame Obama, 20 million is pocket change compared to what has been wasted the past 8.

 

I have a feeling this is what will be the theme for the next 4 years. The past 8 years allows this Congress and President to do whatever they want.

 

You guys will see, if you havent already that Obama is not a leader, he is being led.

 

His stimulus package called for 40% tax cuts, 75% spending now. He got 23% tax cuts and 53% of the bill will be spent in the year 2011 or later thanks to Nancy and Harry.

 

He continues to pander to the far left, (palestine, abortions, Guantanamo Bay) when he already has their support. He tells for congress to write a bipartisan bill and they get support from 3 of the 200 GOPs. He publicly bashes Hannity and Limbaugh, and hastily tells people who do not support the Spendulus, they dont know what a stimulus is. Thats not bipartisanship.

 

Obama claimed all kinds of new ideas and policies, but so far anyone can see he is just like the politicians before him. And I dont think anyone can dispute that. He seems to have wanted to bring America together, and unless he quits being led and becomes a leader, it isnt going to happen.

Edited February 16, 2009 by BEAVERTAIL

[fieldgeneral 10]

Thats why it was so wrong.

 

Palestine is controlled by Hamas. Not a smart move at all, simply because it doesnt gain us anything.

 

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Do you actually think that they are going to give food and water to people who need it? Why is it that we must gain something in order to help people? That is part of what is wrong with society today. Why do we have to be gaining something to keep some from dieing?

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

What about the billions spent in Iraq over the past several years that was not needed to fight the war on terror?

 

So how would you have gone about getting rid of the largest country that allowed terrorists to prosper and live there? Please explain how you would do so and win the war on terror.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Hamas is a terrorist organization. Do you actually think that they are going to give food and water to people who need it? Why is it that we must gain something in order to help people? That is part of what is wrong with society today. Why do we have to be gaining something to keep some from dieing?

 

Your first sentence says it all. Do some research on Palestine and see who runs it. Google "Hamas Palestine". Im not sure exactly what the second sentence means, because of the first. Because if its what you meant to say, you proved my point.

 

As for the rest, we are allies with Israel, you know the guys who responded to the Hamas instigations from Palestine. By giving to them all we do is piss off Israel. Hamas doesnt care what we do same as Iran. Heck, Iran doesnt even want to talk to Obama. They hate us. Dont piss off a friend just to try and gain another (which will never happen), especially when your country does need the money.

 

Obama's new plan is to start to decrease the deficit. My how he changes his words. I have news Barack and FG, every penny counts.

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Why do we have to be gaining something to keep some from dieing?

 

Hmm.

 

Ok then, we went into Iraq to stop genocide(innocents dying for a racial, religous, or political reason), allowed by Saddam.

 

So is the Iraq war justifiable in your mind now? I mean since you claim we didnt gain anything but debt.

[fieldgeneral 10]

So how would you have gone about getting rid of the largest country that allowed terrorists to prosper and live there? Please explain how you would do so and win the war on terror.

 

The majority of the terrorist problem that we had was Al Qaeda (sp) and Afghanistan was the target area. We used 9-11 as an excuse to go into Iraq after those WMDs that were never found, and I'm sorry but you can't just hide them and not find them for years after we've basically ran the country. WMDs were the sole purpose of going in there. While I was proud to see our troops pull down that statue and agree that the world is a better place w/o Saddam, I also know that it wasn't our personal battle to take him out. It wasn't my job ,IMO, as a taxpayer to fund that battle.

 

If we are going to invade every country that harbors terrorists, we have a huge task ahead of us. Don't be fooled , there are many countries that have terrorists or terror groups among their people. Some know and choose not to fight that battle. Look what has happened to Pakistan. Egypt , Saudi Arabia, Iran, even our country. There are terror suspects or cells living everywhere. We can't just say hey we need to take that country and make diplomacy thrive there. The war in Iraq had many motives, I believe, but that only one that was pushed for media coverage and to get approval was WMDs. It's obvious that we haven't won any war on terror. If we have accomplished anything , it was to remove a dictator from power and destroyed a country which we are paying to rebuild. We did not find WMD we did not find Bin Laden. While we have captured several pieces of his puzzle in Iraq, It's not clear when they arrived. I'm sure many have arrived to help fight.

 

We will never get rid of all terrorism. It has been around for years. I can remember as a kid hearing abour Beirut and the terrorists there. Plane hijackings, bombings, and various other acts have been done for longer than any of us have been around. We were a country that was wounded and our pride was hurt. We wanted revenge, we wanted and needed a success against the evil of terrorism. I feel that if we had kept our "eye on the prize" that we would have found Bin Laden. I feel that we made Iraq a punching bag to make us feel better in a way and we did some good things while there, but it still did not solve the problem.

 

Do you agree with the war in Iraq completely and the timing?

[hokie07 11]

It's obvious that we haven't won any war on terror. If we have accomplished anything , it was to remove a dictator from power and destroyed a country which we are paying to rebuild.

 

The definition for success in Iraq has been stated many times, but here is a paraphase:

 

"Success will have been achieved when Iraq is a stable, representative state that controls its own territory, is oriented toward the West, and is an ally in the struggle against militant Islamism, whether Sunni or Shia."

 

Where have we gone wrong?

[JamesL_CcLB34 10]

Thats why it was so wrong.

 

Palestine is controlled by Hamas. Not a smart move at all, simply because it doesnt gain us anything.

 

well.. it is for victims of the conflict and that is a good thing, but exactly the problem is i'm not sure how much of that money will ever actually get to the victims.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Hmm.

 

Ok then, we went into Iraq to stop genocide(innocents dying for a racial, religous, or political reason), allowed by Saddam.

 

 

So is the Iraq war justifiable in your mind now? I mean since you claim we didnt gain anything but debt.

 

 

Why was genocide not quoted as the reason for invasion, and why wasn't it done during the 1980s when we had proof of Saddam doing this then? Don't you find it odd that there was a plan of assasination against GW's father and no WMD's

 

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1019-05.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm

 

There is a difference between supplying money for food and water and ivading of a country. There is also a huge monetary difference.

 

Iraq war = $3,000,000,000,000 The estimate by former WH economic adviser was 100-200 billion and Rumsfeld said bologna, 50-60 Billion. How much money is being spent paying Iraqis or other foreign workers to rebuild or work in Iraq? It's not much different than paying Illegal aliens or migrant workers here in our country. It seems that alot of the folks on here frown on the immigration problems, why isn't this held in the same light?

 

Palestine aide= $20,000,000

[fieldgeneral 10]

The definition for success in Iraq has been stated many times, but here is a paraphase:

 

"Success will have been achieved when Iraq is a stable, representative state that controls its own territory, is oriented toward the West, and is an ally in the struggle against militant Islamism, whether Sunni or Shia."

 

Where have we gone wrong?

 

Iraq isn't stable and won't be for a long time. It doesn't control it's own territory, and may be partially oriented toward the west, and they are hardly stable enough to be an ally in anything.

[JamesL_CcLB34 10]

Iraq isn't stable and won't be for a long time. It doesn't control it's own territory, and may be partially oriented toward the west, and they are hardly stable enough to be an ally in anything.

 

idk something tells me Iraq might be more stable than we think in the next couple of years..

[fieldgeneral 10]

idk something tells me Iraq might be more stable than we think in the next couple of years..

 

It's hard to tell the future I know, but I feel that with such different groupls of people, that we may be looking at a possible civil war. If so, do we go back in?

[hokie07 11]

Iraq isn't stable and won't be for a long time. It doesn't control it's own territory, and may be partially oriented toward the west, and they are hardly stable enough to be an ally in anything.

 

I did a little research into your claims and I found a wealth of information disproving everything I have quoted above. It's a lot of info so I'll just cut and paste some of the important parts.

 

Stability in Iraq:

Violence is the most obvious indicator of instability and the easiest to measure. The fact that violence has fallen dramatically in Iraq since the end of 2006 is evidence of improving stability. But critics are right to point out that areas tend to be peaceful both when government forces control them completely and when insurgents control them completely. Violence can drop either because the government is winning or because insurgents are consolidating their gains. So in addition to counting casualties and attacks, it is necessary to evaluate whether government control has been expanding or contracting. In fact, it has expanded dramatically over the past 15 months.

 

At the end of 2006, Sunni Arab insurgents controlled most of Anbar province, large areas of Salah-ad-Din and Diyala, southern Baghdad and northern Babil provinces (the "triangle of death"), and large areas of Baghdad itself including the Ameriya, Adhamiya, Ghazaliya, and Dora neighborhoods, which were fortified al Qaeda bastions. Shia militias controlled Sadr City almost completely--American forces could not even enter the area, and virtually no Iraqi forces in Sadr City operated independently of the militias; the militias also controlled the nearby districts of Shaab and Ur, from whence they staged raids on Sunni neighborhoods; they operated out of bases in Khadimiyah and Shula in western Baghdad; they owned large swaths of terrain in Diyala province, where they were engaged in an intense war against al Qaeda; they fought each other in Basra and controlled large areas of the Shia south.

 

Today, al Qaeda has been driven out of Dora, Ameriya, Ghazaliya, and Adhamiya; out of Anbar almost entirely; out of the "southern belt" including the former triangle of death; out of much of Diyala; and out of most of Salah-ad-Din. Iraqi and coalition operations are underway to drive al Qaeda out of its last urban bastion in Mosul. Remaining al Qaeda groups, although still able to generate periodic spectacular attacks, are largely fragmented and their communications partially disrupted. Iraqi Security Forces have been on the offensive against Shia militias in the "five cities" area (Najaf, Karbala, Diwaniya, Hilla, and Kut) and have severely degraded militia capabilities and eliminated militia control from significant parts of this area; the attack in Basra resulted in a reduction of the militia-controlled area, including the recapture of Basra's lucrative ports by government forces; tribal movements in Basra and Nasiriya are helping the government advance and consolidate its gains against the militias; and Iraqi Security Forces, with Coalition support, are moving through parts of Sadr City house by house and taking it back from the militias.

 

The fall in violence in Iraq, therefore, reflects success and not failure. Enemy control of territory has been significantly reduced, and further efforts to eliminate enemy control of any territory are underway. Spikes in violence surrounding the Basra operation reflect efforts by the government to retake insurgent-held areas and are, therefore, positive (if sober) indicators.

 

As for the argument that this stability is based solely on the increased presence of U.S. forces, which will shortly end, or that it is merely a truce between the Sunni and the Shia as they wait for us to leave--we shall soon see. Reductions of U.S. forces by 25 percent are well underway. The commanding general has recommended that after we complete those reductions in July, we evaluate the durability of the current stability, and President Bush has accepted his recommendation.

 

Control of own territory:

The restoration of large urban and rural areas formerly held by insurgents and militias to government control is a key indicator of Iraqi progress. And there are others: the Maliki government's determination to clear Basra and Sadr City of militia influence; Iraqi operations to clear Mosul of al Qaeda fighters; the dramatic growth of the Iraqi Security Forces in 2007 and the further growth underway in 2008. There is anecdotal confirmation of this progress, such as the dramatic decline in the number of illegal militia-controlled checkpoints, most of them set up in and around Baghdad in 2006 for purposes of control, extortion, and murder. Although some war critics claim that the Anbar Awakening has simply put the province into the hands of a new militia, the truth is that the first stage of the movement saw more than 10,000 Anbaris volunteer for the Iraqi Security Forces. Two divisions of the Iraqi army remain in Anbar, and they are mixed Sunni-Shia formations. The Iraqi police force in Anbar, paid for, vetted, and controlled by the Iraqi government, has also grown dramatically. The "Sons of Iraq," who are the security component of the awakening movement, are auxiliaries to these government forces, supplemented by the presence of American troops. In Baghdad's neighborhoods, Sons of Iraq are dwarfed in number by the two Iraqi army divisions stationed in the city (in addition to the mechanized division based just to the north in Taji) and the numerous police and national police formations, all supported by American combat brigades. The Iraqi government is steadily extending its control of its own territory, and has demonstrated a determination to retake insurgent-held areas even from Shia militias.

 

Orientation towards the West:

Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad visited Iraq in March 2008 and was warmly received, prompting concern in the United States that the Iraqi government was tilting toward Tehran. War critics, attempting to spin the Iraqi government's offensive against Shia militias in Basra, argued that Iran "supports" both the militias and the principal Shia parties fighting them--the entire operation, they claimed, was simply "Shia infighting" among groups already devoted to Tehran.

 

A closer examination shows this to be false. While it is true that Iran "supports" both ISCI and Dawa, the two leading Shia parties in the government, with money, and it provides the Sadrist militia not only with money, but with lethal weapons, training, trainers, and advisers inside Iraq to support the militia's fight against the United States and the Iraqi government--nevertheless, Iran does not provide such support to the government of Iraq or to the Iraqi Security Forces, which the United States and its allies have worked hard to develop into effective fighting forces, at the behest of the United Nations and the request of the legitimate government of Iraq. This is not simply "Shia infighting" in which the United States has no stake.

 

More to the point, we might ask what the Iraqi government itself has done to show its preferences. It has asked the United Nations to endorse the Multinational Force mission supporting it, a mission that includes American forces--but not Iranian ones. It has requested a bilateral security agreement with the United States--and not with Iran. It has determined to purchase American weapons and equipment for its armed forces, to replace the Warsaw Pact gear it had been using--and has not requested equipment from Iran or its principal international suppliers, Russia and China. Baghdad is organizing, training, and equipping its military and police forces to be completely interoperable with the United States--and not with Iran. For a government accused of being in Tehran's thrall, the current Iraqi government appears to have demonstrated repeatedly a commitment to stand with the United States, at least as long as the United States stands with Iraq.

 

Credibility of an ally:

Al Qaeda has killed many more Iraqis than Americans. Iraq has eight army divisions--around 80,000 troops--now in the fight against al Qaeda, and another three--around 45,000 troops--in the fight against Shia extremists. Tens of thousands of Iraqi police and National Police are also in the fight. Thus, there are far more Iraqis fighting al Qaeda and Shia militias in Iraq than there are American troops there. Easily ten times as many Iraqi as Pakistani troops are fighting our common enemies. At least three times as many Iraqi soldiers and police as Afghan soldiers and police are in the fight. And many times more Iraqi troops are engaged in the war on terror than those of any other American ally. In terms of manpower engaged, and sacrifice of life and limb, Iraq is already by far America's best ally in the war on terror.

 

All taken from the article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/042wxkzk.asp

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

The majority of the terrorist problem that we had was Al Qaeda (sp) and Afghanistan was the target area. We used 9-11 as an excuse to go into Iraq after those WMDs that were never found, and I'm sorry but you can't just hide them and not find them for years after we've basically ran the country. WMDs were the sole purpose of going in there. While I was proud to see our troops pull down that statue and agree that the world is a better place w/o Saddam,I also know that it wasn't our personal battle to take him out. It wasn't my job ,IMO, as a taxpayer to fund that battle.

 

Oh so helping an enemy is cool, but helping people who didnt really have a fighting chance as terrorist and radical Islamist ran wild. Even if you say both are the same, you have inserted your hypocrisy once again. If Obama wants to spend money sure, but if Bush does, and the money is mostly going for the security of our country oh no. This isnt about money anyways, its about the cause. Its morals and common sense. I wouldnt give money to any terrorist organization for anything.

 

And I hope you realize that the bill to attack Iraq was supported by a large amount more than the stimulus. Over 75% of the senators voted for it. It wasn't one man who did this. And once again, Clinton and his boys created the info that Iraq had WMDs, not Bush. Tie it in with the UN gave them fair warning of the searches, do you expect we would find them? And its not just terrorists to worry about in Iraq, it terrorists who Sadam supports while alledgedly harboring WMDs. Thats why we had to act.

 

I feel that if we had kept our "eye on the prize" that we would have found Bin Laden. I feel that we made Iraq a punching bag to make us feel better in a way and we did some good things while there, but it still did not solve the problem.

 

Do you agree with the war in Iraq completely and the timing?

 

First off, we wouldnt have found Bin Laden and probably never will. Why? People wont give up info on him, he is considered a hero. Remember, we had a manhunt for Saddam as well but we found him fairly quickly. Why? Because people gave info on him cause he was killing innocent people as a dictator. They wanted him gone. We cant get any info on Bin Laden because of the beliefs of the people, and probably wont.

 

Do I agree with the war and the timing? Nope. We had a chance to demolish them earlier and Saddam but we didnt pull the trigger. That was the mistake.

Edited February 16, 2009 by BEAVERTAIL

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Iraq war = $3,000,000,000,000

 

Umm, try again.

[fieldgeneral 10]

I did a little research into your claims and I found a wealth of information disproving everything I have quoted above. It's a lot of info so I'll just cut and paste some of the important parts. /QUOTE]

 

Stability in Iraq:

 

political tensions remain high. Kurd-Arab

tensions on the status of Kirkuk and disputed

internal boundaries were recently manifested

by the refusal of the Kurdistan Regional

Government (KRG) Peshmerga forces to

withdraw from Khanaqin at the request of the

GoI. Intra-Shi’a tensions are visible in the

actions of the Shi’a Arab political parties in the

Council of Representatives (CoR). Sunni –

Shi’a tension continues, as some Sunnis remain

skeptical of the GoI’s commitment to the Sons

of Iraq (SoI) program and are suspicious of

Shi’a political parties’ ties to Iran. Corruption

and sectarian behavior add to these tensions.

Recent actions within the government to

centralize power under the Prime Minister,

coupled with the pending shift in the balance of

power due to the implementation of the

Provincial Powers Law, suggest tensions will

continue between those who favor a strong

central government and those who advocate for

decentralization.

 

At the bottom of pg. 27 it shows that only 45 % of Iraqis feel that the country is stable. and only 43 % believe gov't efforts are effective.

 

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/pdfs/9010_Report_to_Congress_Dec_08.pdf

 

Control of own territory:

With our help, the country is becoming self reliant and controlling parts of their own land, but there are still sections of violence. If they were in control of their own territory they wouldn't need our assistance in that and more than half of the country would believe that travel was safe.

 

Orientation towards the West:

We'll see how oriented they are towards us after we are gone a good bit of time. I hope you are right.

 

 

Credibility of an ally:

Sure the groups that we help build are an ally. There is a large part of people in that country and that region that would prefer us to be gone with our ways of life.

[Deleted Account 5,203]

I have a feeling this is what will be the theme for the next 4 years. The past 8 years allows this Congress and President to do whatever they want.

 

You guys will see, if you havent already that Obama is not a leader, he is being led.

 

His stimulus package called for 40% tax cuts, 75% spending now. He got 23% tax cuts and 53% of the bill will be spent in the year 2011 or later thanks to Nancy and Harry.

 

He continues to pander to the far left, (palestine, abortions, Guantanamo Bay) when he already has their support. He tells for congress to write a bipartisan bill and they get support from 3 of the 200 GOPs. He publicly bashes Hannity and Limbaugh, and hastily tells people who do not support the Spendulus, they dont know what a stimulus is. Thats not bipartisanship.

 

Obama claimed all kinds of new ideas and policies, but so far anyone can see he is just like the politicians before him. And I dont think anyone can dispute that. He seems to have wanted to bring America together, and unless he quits being led and becomes a leader, it isnt going to happen.

 

I couldn't have said it any better myself.

Obama has no idea what he's doing. Like a mindless sheepie, he's being led right to the slaughterhouse.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Umm, try again.

 

looks like 3 trillion to me, that is an expected number when all is said and done.

 

per washington post.

[fieldgeneral 10]

Oh so helping an enemy is cool, but helping people who didnt really have a fighting chance as terrorist and radical Islamist ran wild. Even if you say both are the same, you have inserted your hypocrisy once again. If Obama wants to spend money sure, but if Bush does, and the money is mostly going for the security of our country oh no. This isnt about money anyways, its about the cause. Its morals and common sense. I wouldnt give money to any terrorist organization for anything.

 

And I hope you realize that the bill to attack Iraq was supported by a large amount more than the stimulus. Over 75% of the senators voted for it. It wasn't one man who did this. And once again, Clinton and his boys created the info that Iraq had WMDs, not Bush. Tie it in with the UN gave them fair warning of the searches, do you expect we would find them? And its not just terrorists to worry about in Iraq, it terrorists who Sadam supports while alledgedly harboring WMDs. Thats why we had to act.

 

 

 

First off, we wouldnt have found Bin Laden and probably never will. Why? People wont give up info on him, he is considered a hero. Remember, we had a manhunt for Saddam as well but we found him fairly quickly. Why? Because people gave info on him cause he was killing innocent people as a dictator. They wanted him gone. We cant get any info on Bin Laden because of the beliefs of the people, and probably wont.

 

Do I agree with the war and the timing? Nope. We had a chance to demolish them earlier and Saddam but we didnt pull the trigger. That was the mistake.

 

Noone said helping the enemy is cool. Just because Hamas is controlling the area doesn't mean all the people there are evil. That is like saying every Iraqi is evil because of Saddam. Come on, that's stereotyping. You basically are writing their refugees off because according to you they don't have a fighting chance? You are real compassionate.

 

You're reaching. I don't care who is President, the spending in Iraq is ridiculous. The amount that will be built up is unheard of. It would definitley help our economy to have not footed the whole bill. There is a huge difference in the bill we are building every second in Iraq and 20 million for refugees to survive. We provided aid for Iraqis after we started the invasion.

 

People will give up info on Bin Laden and have. We knew he was in the mountianous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan for quite some time and chose to spend our time and efforts in Iraq while sending a lot less force in that region. The info we got by the way from informants there.

 

You try to dispute every ounce of things I say but you are reaching for excuses. I'm not buying!

[Guest BEAVERTAIL]

Noone said helping the enemy is cool. Just because Hamas is controlling the area doesn't mean all the people there are evil. That is like saying every Iraqi is evil because of Saddam. Come on, that's stereotyping. You basically are writing their refugees off because according to you they don't have a fighting chance? You are real compassionate.

 

When are you gonna learn? Hamas doesnt control an "area". They control the country. Secondly, the US has always supported Israel. Tell me the money Obama sent them. Why hasnt he sent money then?