2007-02-20 09:44:42 · 11 answers · asked by Abu 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
2007-02-20 09:48:54 · update #1
Logic says yes but Liberals say no. Remember we are the "instigators" and hezbollah are "freedom fighters".
2007-02-20 09:57:22 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I would rather attack first and be wrong, as opposed to waiting for better information and be nuked. But the WMDs was only part of why we invaded Iraq. Regardless of what people say, Saddam was an evil man who needed to be taken out of power, while I think this could have been better accomplished, the fact is that we are in Iraq and we started a lot of the attacks there so we have a responsibility to stay in in Iraq until the job is complete.
2007-02-20 09:53:06 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
That's a lot of if's ther Abu. There is much more to it than that. Just because they hate us and are DEVELOPING WMD's doesn't mean much. Once they have developed the WMD's and have overtly threatened us than we may have reason to be concerned. If they are a sovereign country unless they attack another soverign country and the one they attack asks for our help or they attack us directly we stay the heck out. Economic sanctions have been working quite well in controlling most rogue states. The only one it hasn't controlled is the US. That's because the US already has plenty of money.
2007-02-20 09:51:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes, and how IS that pre-emptive war in Iraq going, BTW?
Still feel like we can take on Iran and WIN?
Or maybe, we can all stop this stupid fearmongering, and start thinking with the heads on our shoulders, and instead of acting like the same ***** that we have in our pants...?
Then again--seeing how so many people are blind to the reality of this Iraq war--?
2007-02-20 10:26:13 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Go directly to the Cold War. Do not pass the Berlin Wall. Do not collect $200.
2007-02-20 09:50:20 · answer #5 · answered by Kilroy 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you're an Israeli or American then no. At least that's what the UN says and apparently the UN Charter is now the "supreme law of the land". (Part about the UN charter is NOT my opinion said by someone else, I include it for satire)
2007-02-20 09:49:43 · answer #6 · answered by Mr. Pibb 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Clinton was too gutless to do anything about it but whine.
He wanted the next president to take care of it.
2007-02-20 09:51:45 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Well at least his words make a coherent sentence unlike George's.
He did not mean war. There are other ways to a bottom line.
2007-02-20 09:50:53 · answer #8 · answered by Lou 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Clinton was right for once.
2007-02-20 09:51:58 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I'm sorry, but if we attack first, we are the instigators in a war. That makes us no better than the terrorists. IF we are attacked first, then damn right we should fight back.
2007-02-20 09:48:32 · answer #10 · answered by CC 6 · 4⤊ 3⤋