I hear from the anti war crowd that they wouldn't have invaded Iraq because they didn't attack us. How do you propose to eliminate ist if we have to wait for them to attack us? How many more Americans will die if we wait for an attack? Aren't you the one's that said Bush didn't do enough to prevent 9/11? A little bit of a contradicton, eh?
2007-02-17 06:15:39 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree with you Tom, when I hear them say we shouldnt have invaded Iraq because they didnt attack us I just say, well, when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor, we didnt go directly to Japan, we stormed the beaches at Normandy. We about 4 years later gave the Japanese a little payback.
2007-02-17 06:20:33 · answer #1 · answered by Johnny Conservative 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
actaully, No, it isn't a contradiction, because IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!!
and there is a big difference between defensive measures to prevent something like 9/11 than attacking a country who had ABOSUTLEY NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11!
are you starting to see the pattern?? Iraq didn't do 9/11. Iraq didn't do 9/11 Iraq did not do 9/11.
is there some other way, some other language, some other picture people need to draw, so the concept can be understood??
2007-02-17 14:32:15 · answer #2 · answered by qncyguy21 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well, first, you didn't even get the guy that did attack us... so you haven't even eliminated the most blatantly obvious threat...
but now your talking about a guy attacking us that had no delivery system, and now we found out no weapons... so that's a problem...
you could use your excuse for ANY COUNTRY THAT ANYONE DEEMED A THREAT... china, canada, Mexico, Iran, Saudi, england, france, italy, cuba... basically anyone...
"they could attack us, do you really want to wait around and see?"...
I don't know of any moves for saddam to attack us, he didn't even have anything to do with 9-11, while many other countries clearly had heavy links...
some have said he didn't do enough, but in hindsight, I don't guess anyone did enough... but there's not much you can do about that now...
I guess the big question is... how do you prioritize who's a threat and who we should attack? it's a waste of time to attack those that aren't threats...
2007-02-17 14:24:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is not why I would not have invaded Iraq. And I am not part of the anti-war crowd, incidentally.
The reason I would not have invaded Iraq is that the people over there are too crazy.
I do support the US now that we are there, and I abhor the hypocrisy of the liberals who voted to go and are now bashing the President.
2007-02-17 14:21:56 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Somehow I do not believe your narrow minded ultra conservative frothing and arrogance will change in the least the fact that most Americans, on all sides, are against you. Checked the polls lately?
That's what I thought.
2007-02-17 14:23:35 · answer #5 · answered by douglas l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
iraqians had nothing to do with 9/11, there is no proof what soever. we are in their for oil! period. i feel bad for you, because you are one of the suckers that Bush was talking to on this so called fight on terrorism. any person with a logical mind would have went after osama. why arent we going after him? and dont tell me we cant find him! we found hussein a couple of feet in the ground, we cant find a man in rags in a tent? what the hell is the CIA for?
2007-02-17 14:20:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
attacking iraq for what
afghanis, saudis, and pakis
allegedly did doen't make any sense.
it only emboldens and creates
more enemies.
2007-02-17 14:21:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
amen.
2007-02-17 14:18:31 · answer #8 · answered by junglejoe 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋