Iraq vet vs Bush apologist

Iraqi war veteran Paul Hacket debated Dan Senor on the O Reilly factor. Things get a little heated.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• George
• Bush
• Iraq
• War
• Rumsfeld
• Hacket
• Senor
• civil
• war
• veteran
• Iraqi
• CPA
• service
• reilly
• debate
• debating
• oreilly
• factor

[CadicusTheDamned]

"TRUST THE VETERAN, NOT THE CHICKENHAWK"

Right the fuck on. That apologist fucking douche just spouts the drivel he has been paid to say. Talk to the boots on the ground, not the corporations raking in our dollars hand over fist because of this disaster.

[coananthecustodian]

In addition, FUCK FOX NEWS, WHAT BIASED BRAIN WASHED BULL FUCKING SHIT

[MrE1776]

DUDE YOU WANNA STOP THE WAR ON TERROR! DONT PAY YOUR FUCKING TAXES!! ITS NOT LIKE THERE GOING TO SCHOOLS, OR TRANSIT SYSTEMS. NO ITS GOING TO THIS FUCKING WAR!!! NO MORE TAXES!!! NO MORE TAXE!!! NO MORE TAXE!!!

HIGHLY RECOMMEND WATCHING ------- IRAQ FOR SALE: THE WAR PROFITEERS

RESEARCH THIS FILM AND THE PEOPLE INTERVIEWED IN IT. THE FACTS YOU'LL LEARN ARE INCREDIBLE!!!

[TheFightaz]

its just insane how veterans are blocked form speaking their minds, if they are against the invasions then they talk over them and ridicule them just to polarize the TV audience to the side of the establishment

[TheFightaz]

don't talk on behalf of the military that have risked their lives just like that politicians that profit from the manufactured war on terror. Bring the people home !!

[telecasterluva666]

One sided news as usual from the fucks at the Murdock owned Fox News. The news that so biased that anyone that actually watches it should be punched in the face the moment they admit to watching the crap. The news that is designed to dumb down the population but pretends to be hardhitting. In addition to that. This Dan Senor should go home and suck some more snot out of his boyfriends fuck stick and shut the fuck up. Just another one of Bush's yes men. Anything to get to the top of the ladder.

[MrJs1G]

@poenschepper

Abdul Rahman Yasin, the terrorists who threw the disabled Leon Klinghoffer off the Achille Laro, and his collaboration with Mr. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the founder and leader of AQI, and his aspiration to buy and proliferate nuclear weapons, the most evident of this when it attempted to buy the N. Korean missile system in its entirety (in violation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty).

Shall I go on?

[MrJs1G]

@poenschepper

Because the US helped Saddam while he was in power, giving the "green light" for his against Iran. Because the US supplied him with 1% of the arms in order to committ atrocities during the Iran-Iraq war. The US' backing of such an egregious despot should redouble its responsibility to help clean up, no?

Saddam invaded Kuwait (annexing a territory), violated the Geneva Convention (to which the US is signatory), harbored and aided Palestinian suicide bombers, Abu Nidal,

[MrJs1G]

@poenschepper

Precisely - I don't see what's wrong with that. Saddam Hussein, an irrational despot (I hope this is consensual and that I don't have to list the reasons supporting this claim) was sitting on one of the most oil-rich lands, a *chokepoint* of the world economy. Would you rather have an Iraqi-led democracy, as ineffective as it is sometimes, or Saddam sitting on top of one of the world's most abundant oil reserves?

[poenschepper]

@MrJs1G President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that Iraq remained a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US ' intervention' was necessary." This was 6 months before 9/11. 9/11, the war on terrorism, the UN weapons inspections, weapons of mass destruction where just smokescreens to justify the invasion. This is not fallacious, its my opinion. what do you think the reason was ?

[MrJs1G]

@poenschepper

on the Iraqi oil fields and thus, your suggestion that the US invaded for oil is a fallacious one.

When you respond, respond to my prior points.