I think I'm one of the few who picked up on your irony there, bro.
I started cutting my hair shorter after 9/11. We have not been attacked since 9/11. Therefore my shorter haircut is essential to preventing terrorism.
Replace my haircut with any bs neo-con rhetoric and you have their case for constant war in a nutshell.
2006-08-29 05:36:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Schmorgen 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
You should ask the Iraqi people that question. Have you heard of cities having a sister city in another country? It's a form of cultural exchange. Maybe we can do the same with the people in Iraq. Each American can be assigned an Iraqi that can die in the Americans place.
Does this sound ludicrous? So does the idea of fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. If you hadn't noticed the last three terrorist plots to be foiled we in the UK, Canada and the US. We are fighting them over here.
BTW. How many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq?
2006-08-29 12:46:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's never been proven that there has been any link between Saddam and any terrorists groups.
The only thing that's been proven is that your daddy had a business deal with Saddam, your daddy helped put Saddam into power in exchange for a bigger slice of that Iraq oil. When Saddam had full power and turned his back on the business deal only then did he become an enemy to the Bush family.
After 9-11 you had the real terrorists cornered, a guy named Osama, had him up against a wall, then you suddenly decided you didn't want him so much any more and focused on Saddam.
A Bush business deal is a business deal any nobody messes with the Bush Boys when if comes to money!
2006-08-29 12:29:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by Doc Watson 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
If US really wished to fight terror she don't come to Iraq , terrorists there around Iraq (US enemies) But in Iraq 90% of people were not agree with their former president who was assisted by west world against others but no use,Iraqis may hurt themselves but not turned into terror guides while some of them are fighting for the lost authorities,others start to build their own states for limited benefits .any human being has countable no.of years to live including mr.saddam.
2006-08-29 13:04:37
·
answer #4
·
answered by Satisfiedmom 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Iraq wasn't about the terrorists. It was about the potential for weapons of mass destruction that would have had the capability of destabilizing the middle east (even more so than it already is.) Both sides of the aisle (democrat and republican) felt that the information was overwhelming that he either had WMD or was on the verge of having it. With information coming from all directions (with little of it actually from the ground due to Clinton's cutting of field assets) he made the decision that was in the countries best interest. As for the one poster saying that Iraq has not attacked the US since the Gulf war I would have to argue with you there as well. How many times have that shot at our planes in the no-fly zone. How many times have they flown in the no-fly zone. And, if he didn't have WMD then why such a hard time about allowing inspectors in?
2006-08-29 12:30:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by BrianR 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
Please don't be silly, Dubya. There were no 'Iraqi terrorists' waiting to enter America. There were and are more potential terrorists in Saudi Arabia, and Afghanistan which no longer has the resources it needs thank to Bush's sideshow. Iraq was one of the Arab world's most secular countries, and as evil as Saddam was, he kept a lid on radical Islamists. Now the genie has been let out of the bottle, thanks to your great leader, and al Quaeda is more popular than ever in the Muslim world.
2006-08-29 12:12:32
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dunrobin 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Terrorists are everywhere and they hate us more than ever now. They're not affiliated with any one country. They're not part of the government or the military. They're independent groups just like the radical militia groups here in the USA. If there were any in Iraq they probably left the country before our troops arrived and they're hiding out somewhere else to plan their next move. You've swallowed Bush's lies hook, line, and sinker, but some of us are capable of thinking for ourselves and we can see he hasn't made us any safer.
2006-08-29 12:26:56
·
answer #7
·
answered by ConcernedCitizen 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Most people believe going to Iraq was taking our eyes OFF terrorism. Afghanistan made sense. Iraq is almost in civil war, their people are killing each other a lot more than they are killing soldiers. Iraq is a Bush war, and I'm bushed.
2006-08-29 12:14:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
Iraqi's never attacked the U.S. in ten years since the first Gulf War they did absolutely nothing to the U.S. also, getting into this country is no problem. Just ask Mexicans and Canadians..a few thousand enter the U.S. each and every day.
2006-08-29 12:16:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by the man 1
·
3⤊
0⤋
That is not why we are in Iraq. However there are many terrorist in Iraq currently fighting. The war on Terror is a World Wide effort and it has been pretty effective I must say. So your attempt at sarcasm only showed us what you don't know.
2006-08-29 12:12:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋