The public now knows there were no WMD's, & that UN sanctions had worked leaving Iraq with little or no infrastructure left to build or develop nuclear or biological weapons and any existing chemical weapons had long degraded. Even republicans now realize that the ideals of democracy have to be freely chosen rather than be forced at gun point down the throats of a diverse and divided population.
The neo-cons rationalizations for turning the USA into a first strike nation & bombing the Iraqis back into the dark ages have faded away like the smoke and mirrors they were.
Neo-cons are again using their old tricks to manipulate the publics fear of terrorist attack.
Stating its better to fight terrorists over there rather than having to fight them in OUR cities and that was why lil bushy had to attack Iraq.
Isn't this a sick justification for unleasing the horrors of War on a people who didn't attack us as our troops were already fighting terrorists OVER THERE in Afghanstan?
2006-08-28 11:19:41 · 9 answers · asked by rcabrave 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
bush and his cronies were just waiting to go after iraq no matter what !!! the intelligance didnt fit so bush and cheney made it fit,so now we have a war for what? to prove to the world that bush and cheney were wrong ??
2006-08-28 11:34:37 · answer #1 · answered by ? 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Have you noticed that America hasn't been attacked since 9/11. Liberals are more dangerous to this country than terrorists are because they at every turn try an undermine the President and the war. The Democrats are also so concerned with being politically correct that they would make sure we don't hurt the enemy's feelings, it's OK for 3000 Americans to die as long as Osama's feelings aren't hurt. Bush did not start this war, they did --- Iran (under Carter's watch attacked the US embassy), Hezbollah attacked a US base killing hundreds of soldiers in the early 80's, as well as tortured and killed an American citizen, USS Cole, 1st Trade Center bombing, and so forth.
Take the fight to them WHEREVER they are so we don't wake up again and your city has a mushroom cloud over it.
2006-08-29 00:03:59 · answer #2 · answered by OatesATM 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is better to fight over there versus over here. I personally think we should be more focused on Afghanistan, but Iraq is known to harbor and fund terrorists. I personally think any person involved in any part of a terroristic plot should be brought down. I don't discriminate. I don't care if they are in Afghanistan or Iraq, if they are part of a terroristic plot, they should all be brought down!
2006-08-28 18:24:31 · answer #3 · answered by rockinout 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm disappointed as well. But its because the people who bomb us were individual people so the army I guess thought that since this was individual people they might do the same everywhere else. And we're still lookin for aso mon binlati or wat ever you call him. Bush still is pretty lousy president he's trying to help the world around us when america needs help it self.
2006-08-28 18:27:25 · answer #4 · answered by Dominican angel 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The government doesn't tell you everything...you couldn't handle it!!! Being an armchair critic...anybody can do it!!! I hope you and many others wake up from their dreamworld before it's too late...
2006-08-28 19:14:16 · answer #5 · answered by just me 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your type of thinking gets people killed. We were not in Iraq because of the terrorist attacks. But no one will obviously ever convince you of anything.
2006-08-28 18:23:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 4⤋
Because this war is about oil... Afghanistan does not hold the worlds largest supply of oil.
2006-08-28 18:22:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
How have we left Afghanistan.. there is a large multinational force there?
2006-08-28 18:23:19 · answer #8 · answered by Black Sabbath 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush has ADD or something and forgot the plans.
2006-08-28 18:22:01 · answer #9 · answered by Tommy D 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋