Another question for you Sheepublicans that believe it's better to fight them over there instead of over here?

Question

If "over there" is any place that's (a) Muslim and (b) not American, why didn't we fight them "over there" in Afghanistan?

If the idea was to draw terrorists from the entire region into on melee, why did it have to be Iraq? Was it more centrally located, so that terrorists wouldn't have to travel so far? Well, that's nice.

I guess my real question is "why do you Sheepublicans buy everthing your Chancellor says hook, line and sinker?"

Shane L is the ONLY answerer from the right who has made a reasonable argument for taking Iraq, and for that I thank him.

And just for the record, I have never voted Democrat in my life - I'm just amazed that the soundbites are parroted without any scrutiny.

Answer 1

You answered your own question quite nicely.

What is the major sect of Islam that is responsible for terrorism? Answer: Wahhabism.

Where is the birthplace and central location of Wahhabist leaders? Answer: Saudi Arabia.

Where is the central location of Shiite extremists? Answer: Iran.

Who is the largest state sponsor of Islamic terrorism? Answer: Iran.

What Islamic country that supports terrorism is closest to developing a nuclear capability? Answer: Iran.

Besides Saudi Arabia and Iran, what is the next largest state sponsor of Islamic terrorism? Answer: Syria.

What country borders Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria? Answer: Iraq.

Get it?

Answer 2

We did and are fighting them in Afghanistan, too. In case you hadn't noticed. Perhaps you have not heard that Saddam had long ties with al Qaeda and protected al Qaeda members and even had training camps that trained 1,000's of al Qaeda terrorists. And with his access to WMD, it was a dangerous association.

Also, military-wise Afghanistan is difficult to logistically support a large presence. Without a port capacity, everything would need to be airlifted in. We surely would not be able to sustain a significant presence in Afghanistan by airlift. The supply chain would be even more difficult if a sizable portion of that were to be operating in the rough East & Southeast areas of Afghanistan. Heavy armored equipment would be absent.

Iraq, on the other hand, has significant port and infrastructure capacity to enable logistical support for the significant presence we have there. This allows us to be able to use our full panoply of weapons systems, and allows the full supply of our troops and our allies' troops, and additionally all the equipment used to help Iraq rebuild.

What's with all the stupid little twistings of the word 'Republican'? Do people think this makes them clever, witty or cute? And the 'chancellor' reference is yet another piece of low-brow garbage.

If you want serious answers, can the stupid bs.

Answer 3

Initially Saddam was a Socialist. After getting over power became a mad cruel dictator. He would never allow to be removed by Extremist of Al Qaida same like today current Saudi Kings will hang (if get a chance) each and every Al Qaida devoted member. They will do this for not to please the world or BushCo but to save their Kingship and rule.

First Iraq war made out cry in Muslim world generally and in extreme groups specifically which propelled Al Qaida from a mixed organization of extremism & terrorism to full flag terrorism course.

The First Iraq war generated a lot of talks of revival of Crusader in Muslim world. Our administrator has launch second war on Iraq to have undisturbed supply of enemy combatant around the world around the clock instead of fixing up one mess at a time in Afghanistan. It’s an elephant messing around as depicted in Time Cover sheet.

Answer to your question. Nation in a bubble.

Answer 4

Iraq is a tactical position in the middle east. We used a valid excuse to take up that central position. WMD's? He had them. We sold them to him in the 80's. He used VX nerve gas (an American weapon) on the Kurds, not mustard gas. So that's why we occupied Iraq. You play too much PlayStation boy. Get a clue and come talk to us when you understand the real meaning of tactical warfare!

Answer 5

We didn't -- and aren't -- fighting them in Afghanistan? I seem to remember 10 intense weeks of fighting starting on October 7, 2001. I also seem to remember that the same day the Iraq war started, there was a major offensive also launched in Afghanistan.

Come back when you got game, kiddo.

Answer 6

It really isn't about convenience, so much as getting publicity and trying to win poll points be being a "War President"! Well, Dubya has succeed in being that...just a really CRAPPY war prez!

Also, remember the importance of his connection to big oil in all this. it would explain why we haven't gone into other regions like the Sudan, to "spread democracy"...NO OIL!

As to "fighting here"...I'm not sure what you mean, unless you're saying that the current admin. knew it was too slow-witted, lazy and uninterested in intelligence to fight terrorism HERE In the U.S. If that's what you mean, you've hit another nail on the head!

Answer 7

I will have to call me friends who are fighting in Afghanistan that they do not exist.

(A) Do not insinuate others are foolish and then write an idiotic question

(B) The USA does not have a chancellor.

Thank you for not being a Republican

Answer 8

Why not both?

Saddam should have been stopped by world community long before the USA had to intervene. No leader should be allowed to gas whole territories and get away with it..

I am glad we had the gonads to stop him.

Answer 9

I'm sorry, I must have forgot that there are no troops in Afghanistan.

Answer 10

'I guess my real question is "why do you Sheepublicans buy everthing your Chancellor says hook, line and sinker?"'

Keep guessing, moron.