No really, can you. Listening to Floyd Landis brought back memories of a different excuse it seems everyday.
2006-08-10
15:40:11
·
14 answers
·
asked by
Chucky
2
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
BOREDSTIFF: so where's these weapons of mass distruction? Remember one of the UN inspectors lied about them when he inspected Iraq.
2006-08-10
15:46:13 ·
update #1
GUM B: Canadian eh, you don't sound like one.
2006-08-10
15:47:43 ·
update #2
EYEMYTRAP: Your right-on. George just happen to have an army there and wanted to clean up dads mess. Tell me everyone if Saddam was so bad why didn't George H. Bush take him out when he had the chance.
2006-08-10
15:50:03 ·
update #3
REMY D: Glad to see someone can see through all this smoke. To the rest of you, you are all being lead down the road like lambs to the slaughter house. Stop watching your CNN and listen to what other nations are saying.
2006-08-10
15:55:11 ·
update #4
MULLIGAN: You say they found weapons of mass destruction, maybe you can show the world where they are, cause there still looking honey.
2006-08-11
02:30:15 ·
update #5
Because Saddam had WMD's remember. The same WMD's Reagan and Bush's daddy gave to Saddam.
What nutcase conservatives won't tell you is not only did conservatives give WMD's to Saddam but they knew he used them all.
How do they know? because Saddam admitted he was out and wanted more. We said no being the blood was already on the conservatives hands. That's why I laugh when nutcase conservatives complain about abortion and killing baby's when conservatives have been directly responsible for the deaths of almost a million baby's through weapons deals with Iraq, Iran, Bin Laden, the Contras, Noriega, and others.
The truth is is that Bush and Cheney have made millions from this war (Carlyle group, Halliburton, Fire fighting contracts) and needed to use SCARE TACTICS to convince people Saddam was going to get them so we needed to invade Iraq.
Bin Laden couldn't be happier. He must be thanking his lucky stars that we have a moron for a President.
2006-08-10 15:50:34
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Iraq, is considered the center of the middle east. It is a crucial tactical point because of its vastness and corrupt officials did not help that. These terror groups exploited that fact, through bribery deception, misinformation, and violence so that they could traffic in money and weapons throughout this country to anywhere in the middle east. If you want to deal with the root cause of this problem then you will need to cut off these groups from thier supply routes. Iraq being in the direct center with so few checkpoints before the UN got there made it ideal for such activity. Iraq was nearly begged for years to open thier factories to UN inspectors and they refused. They ignored threats of sanctions and disrespected not just the United States but the entire world in doing so. By creating an environment that could foster these types of groups.
2006-08-10 23:16:48
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There was absolutely no reason whatsoever for our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Sure, Sadam was a bad guy. But, there are a number of them all over the world. After we citizens were lied to and misled, the administration continues to try to justify the unjustifiable. Now, of course, we have sent the country into civil war and the region into chaos. This will be seen by history as the worst cluster f--- in the history of the world, and a significant contributor to the horrific world conditions of the next X number of years.
2006-08-10 22:58:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by homerunhitter 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Weapons of Mass Destruction. That was the original reason. A Big Fat Lie. I said to my friends when Bush was elected that he was trigger happy like his Daddy and I was right he had to have his war.
2006-08-10 22:46:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by eyeamatrip 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Well if ANYONE is saying it was strictly due to WOM they are a fool. There is a heck of a lot more at stake in Iraq than just weapons.
Thank GOD USA has a President that has the BALLS to do something about it....and hey I am Canadian.....
2006-08-10 22:44:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Gurn B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
So before you go "Bush bashing."I knowthat is the in thing to do remember what you "leaders" said!
Prior to "Iraqi Freedom"
Bill Clinton said on February 17th, 1998, "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force,
our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Senator Hillary Clinton:
On October 10, 2002 she said, "In the four years since the inspectors left,intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his
chemical and biological weapons stock. His missile delivery capability,his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists
including Al-Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity
to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
John 'cherry-picking' Kerry said on January 23rd, 2003,"Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein.
He is a brutal, murderous dictator leading an impressive regime.He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently
prone to miscalculation. And now he's miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
His consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction."
On September 27th, 2002 Senator Kennedy said,"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is
seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Just dictating what your "Supreme Dictators" said. Want some more here:
Even worse, they have intentionally denied acceptance of the results of the bipartisan Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States
Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction lead by Judge Laurence H. Silberman and former Sen. Charles S. Robb (D-Va.). The commission examined the pre-war intelligence
and reported that not only had the intelligence about Iraq's illicit weapons been overwhelmingly faulty and wrong,
but they completely exonerated the President's White House and administration officials of charges from Democrats that they had pressured intelligence analysts
to shade or change their reports because of political pressure.
2006-08-10 22:43:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Boredstiff 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Plane and simple Saddam had to be stoped. I can remember he gave the surviving family of Palestinian suicide bombers a reward in cash for terrorizing Israel along with not cooperating with UN inspectors. and trying to wipe out the Kurds in northern Iraq with nerve gas. It was plain to see that Saddam had to go.
2006-08-11 23:27:45
·
answer #7
·
answered by G 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
To remove power from saddam who commited crimes against the world and to prevent him from collecting and holding illegal wmds and minor weapons that are against UN security protocals. Also, to spread democracy to an oppressed people.
2006-08-10 22:45:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by rizzlejizzle16 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
I was going to comment, but "boredstiff" said it all in a nutshell. As far as WMD are concerned, it appears Bill, Hillary, John and Teddy were all wrong. That must be what got us into this war.
2006-08-10 22:47:13
·
answer #9
·
answered by gtoacp 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you are only accepting the answer you decided was right, why ask?
It was weapons of mass destruction & yes there were some found, and they were listed dozens of times here. Did you think Iran would not help them move & hide them?
Someone needs to open his mind instead of thinking he is always right.
2006-08-10 23:29:56
·
answer #10
·
answered by Wolfpacker 6
·
0⤊
2⤋