There were no Iraqi people aboard those planes when WTC was hit. Iraq was no threat. ( It is now thanks to Bush ) Will we once again go down in shame like Vietnam?
2006-10-13 05:08:33 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
"Will we once again go down in shame like Vietnam?"
Absolutely! More shameful yet, being it a fact that the leader of a democracy went against the will of the majority and the world to begin a war that has degenerated into one of the worse conflicts in modern history
2006-10-13 05:10:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 6⤋
It's called the Strategy of Confusion. My brother is in the 82nd Airborne, and insists too, that Saddam and Bin Laden were lovers--i.e. in bed together. The Military have to mislead our soldiers so that there are no "doubts" and hesitation when they are in a fire fight...but I digress. Read Clarke's book to find the truth, and check out the Naitonal Archives. When they declassify documents, such as the memo proving Clarke provided the Clinton Strategy on Al Qaeda on 1-25-01 to Ms. Rice, then you can get a real sense of just how corrupt the USG is. Democrap or Repukelican, they are all in bed with the same elitists. Even had Kerry or Gore won, the CFR would have had prime positions in the Cabinet. Use this computer you are asking questions on, to research and enlighten yourselves...not just for games, porn and blogs.
2006-10-13 12:16:58 · answer #2 · answered by Damien104 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mohammed Atta was Egyptian. I guess you want to declare war against Egypt, right? Also, Hussein sent assassins in the early 90s to kill GHW Bush and Oliver North and his family on American soil. I think Ramzi Yousseff was an Iraqi intel agent and he helped pull of the 1993 bombing of the WTC towers. Go back to school, junior.
2006-10-13 12:12:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
After what happened on 9-11, the United States could not take a chance, given the intelligence that Iraq had WMD. Whew, I'm out of breath!
2006-10-13 12:14:38 · answer #4 · answered by sacolunga 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
How come people say "Iraq and 9-11" in the same breath?
By asking, "How come people say "Iraq and 9-11" in the same breath?"
Will we once again go down in shame like Vietnam?
There will always be a side that compares Iraq II (W's Revenge) with Vietnam. So yes.
2006-10-13 12:11:09 · answer #5 · answered by JaMoke 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Iraq did not fund any of the 911 terrorist and Saddam and Bin Laden did not get along. 15 out of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Bush himself stated Iraq had nothing to do with 911. They have done a good job of changing the word insurgent into the word terrorist. To think that all the terrorist are swarming to Iraq just to get the American troops is insane. Bush told us they want our ways of life and freedom that means they would have to come here if that was true.
2006-10-13 12:15:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Because Iraq funded and trained the terrorists. This is the first time that we have not been attacked by a country, but a group of people. The basic rules of warfare are not the same.
They do not obey the Geneva Convention, so we should not either. If only one party agrees to play by the rules, they will lose. If you don't believe this, let's play poker for big stakes. You stick to the rules, and I do whatever I want. Who will walk away with the money?
The only shame of Vietnam was people like you who undermined the effort. The political correctness in that war is why it lasted so long, why so many soldiers died, and why we did not win.
If I hire a hitman to kill someone, I am just as guilty as the hitman even though I was not there when the murder took place. How can you people not understand something this simple?
.
2006-10-13 12:09:37 · answer #7 · answered by FozzieBear 7 · 5⤊ 5⤋
It's so obvious just based on the fact that we let North Korea slide and then we attack Iraq and Iran (tbd) because they may or may not be trying to get WMD. Could this be due to oil (see link)? And then we cause an extra 655,000 Iraqi deaths and that's justified?
People generating the numbers: "We said it was 655,000 deaths, and we’re 95% sure it’s between about 400,000 and 950,000."
2006-10-13 12:15:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
i too would rather juist layed back and wait for another attack , 3000 people wasn't nearly enough dead for our president to take action . until the entire city of new york is demolished bush should do nothing . Just because it is a known fact iraq harbors an trains terrorsit means nothing , and why should we protect our safety . I agree with you 100%
2006-10-13 12:14:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Seems like they should only be able to tamp so much sand in someones @$$ before they catch on. But many (quote) Republican (quote) are so busy being defensive of their party leadership that they will never see the brick until it smashes in their head
2006-10-13 12:22:44 · answer #10 · answered by tom l 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There was no link between Iraq and terrorists. It was WMDs they were after.
http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html
2006-10-13 12:17:22 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋