The WMD does exist, saddam just handed them off to terrorists or something.
That's why it was right to invade Iraq. We had to stop Saddam from handing WMD's to terrorists.
Makes alot of sense
2006-07-11 21:56:09 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Government
I'm not saying saddam was a good guy, learn to answer my question in context fnkycolmedina, you respond like the perfect pawn to this administration, believe that your party is infallible, you'll be the moron when the truth is accepted.
2006-07-11 22:04:04 · update #1
War is Peace.
Ignorance IS Strength.
Get with the program...how many fingers am I holding up? See, if I say there were WMD's, there are if you want to see them. It's all in your mind.
If I say the evil terrorists want to kill us because they hate our freedom, then who are you to disagree. I am Big Brother. Your body is free, but I own your mind.
2006-07-11 22:42:10 · answer #1 · answered by lostinromania 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Was it right for...
....Saddam to murder over 300,000 Kurds?
....Iraq to invade Kuwait?
....Iraq to shoot at coalition planes in the no-fly zones?
....Iraq to support and finance the families of suicide bombers who hit Israel?
....Iraq to violate over 17 U.N. resolutions that were passed by the security council and an overwhelming international majority?
....France, Russia, and some U.N. members to be involved in the "Food or Oil" scandal (explaining motive to be against war)?
Don't forget who you're defending there, Cochran. You can pick whatever side of the war you want to be on. If you pick Saddam, then you probably would have been against stopping the Holocaust as long as it didn't leave Germany.
On the other front, the U.S. can only be faulted with being too patient with Saddam, letting him stay in power after the first Gulf War. We backed the threats carefully worded in each and every U.N. resolution that he violated. It is completely ridiculous for anyone with a sense of logic to think the situation could have been diplomatically resolved. And if you didn't think financing Palestinian terrorists was bad, you probably didn't think he was capable of using terrorist connections to strike at others in the future.
One word for ya..."naive"
________
Update:
I think you got more than you bargained for....LOL
Realize that you are labeling the doublespeak "conservative". However, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many conservatives who think that way. Invading Iraq is not only limited to the WMD argument, and I think you know that as well as most conservatives...
2006-07-12 05:00:54 · answer #2 · answered by SirCharles 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Clean Air Act, Healthy forest Act, Clean Coal Technology just to name a few
Bin Laden didn't attack because of our freedoms. He warned us in 1998 that is we didn't get American soldiers out of Saudi Arabia, we would suffer the consequences. He believed they defiled the Muslim Holy land. He also thinks that we are supporting the House of Saud to keep the price of oil down. He believes the price should be $200 a barrel. And guess what, US soldiers are out of Saudi Arabia and the price of oil is climbing. You might say that bin Laden has achieved what he wanted. Meanwhile, we are losing or freedoms here at home!
2006-07-12 09:18:01 · answer #3 · answered by ggarsk 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
does to me Bush was right now needs to fight like the Israeli troops do level more buildings
2006-07-12 05:00:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
the president is a smart man.
2006-07-12 05:05:55 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋