2006-09-28 14:16:31 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Pake - oh, chill, I just like making people like you who are in total denial about the absolute war crimes the US is and has been commiting try to scramble your brain to justify it to yourself.
You can't, but I like to see you try. It is funny the logical flaws you come up with and the blind flagwaving fix you have to give yourself, like a drug addict, to maintain the high of patriotism needed to tell yourself such lies. You are a nationalist junkie.
2006-09-28 14:24:35 · update #1
so that the Shiites and Sunnis could have a peaceful Ramadan like they are having now.
2006-09-28 15:13:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually it was against Saddam and his posse who killed over 200,000 of his own people. And it was a breading ground for some terrorist (not all of them). Plus Saddam did support terrorist like Hezbollah and a few others. We all know that. I'm not to sure about Al Quida even though there are intellengence reports from countries outside of the USA that has linked individuals from Al quida visiting Iraq. After 9/11our stance was you were either with the terrorist or against them. Iraq chose the latter. Look at Lybia (Great Example). They actually turned terrorist over to Brittian and the US. I'm not to say whether the attack in Iraq is right or not. This is why we attacked them through our governments eyes.
2006-09-28 14:28:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I recall our troops & bombers repeatedly holding back in an altruistic fashion that jeopardized their own [USMC] lives, which I find to be nothing more than primitive sacrifice -- immoral:
Dropping to one knee and laying down arms when met by gunmen in front of a masque; urban combat in Falluaga, when harsh bombing of the hoodlums would have been much more appropriate; Syrian boarder breaches that should have been incinerated, but were left to come in and fight; Sadr... who now, with Iran's help, may be our undoing.
2006-09-28 14:35:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why didn't we is the real question. If we had our troops would never have needed to go in. And Iraq would be a nuclear wasteland, just like Iran needs to be.
2006-09-28 14:19:36 · answer #4 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because they couldn't get to you first?
I wish people like you would get over it! Saddam violated the terms of his surrender from Gulf War 1 and the UN was totally (as usual) incompetent and unwilling to do anything. Kudos to President Bush for stepping up to the task. History will prove him correct.
CONSDIERING THAT WE HAVEN'T NUKED IRAQ I'D SAY THAT THE U.S. LEADERS ARE HIGHLY RESTRAINED!
DUH!
2006-09-28 14:21:25 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hey that's the Skull&Bones way of doing business.
It's war not the special olympics
2006-09-28 14:35:03 · answer #6 · answered by Skull&Bones 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was determined that Hussein was not going to allow weapons inspectors into his country...he was given an ultimatum and thought he'd call our bluff
2006-09-28 14:23:22 · answer #7 · answered by 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
ask your buddy sadaam why he filled mass graves with his countrymen.
2006-09-28 14:26:18 · answer #8 · answered by bushfan88 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋