That was the reason Bush gave for us going to war in Iraq. When that lie was disproven, the reasons for going to war began to evolve into other reasons to try to make it still look appealing.
2007-06-20 17:50:36 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sure. Now do a little homework. Go back and read the president's speach about the reasons to go into Iraq. Or better yet read this link. I will let John Kerry explain it to you.
.
2007-06-20 17:57:58 · answer #1 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
i certainly do in contrast to labels and stereotypes. i do no longer think of that anybody even concept or suggested they had. What we've been advised develop into they had weapons of mass destruction. Which all of us understand now develop right into a lie. yet whilst he had them then he develop right into a probability. that's the reason i won't be able to fault every person for believing the president. He swore to uphold the form and look after human beings. I voted with him two times yet i won't be able to vote for every person whether they're Republican in the event that they suspect he's nice. as a count number of fact i've got faith he must be impeached. it does no longer get previous 2 thirds of the Senate even nevertheless it would make a fact that desires to be made. To good issues off at present he vetoed a bill for stem cellular study in spite that's the will of the human beings and could heal many ailments. He positioned his religious ideals above the wellbeing of the human beings. We deliver troops to war understanding some will die. yet we make a determination that to no longer gain this may well be worse. So how is that distinctive in using embryos to save lives.
2016-10-18 05:26:09 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You seriously need to quit generalizing. By the way, I am a conservative and thought this war was a misstep in the first place. Bush got poor intelligence and Saddamn was not willing to let inspectors in. Would that sound suspicious to you? The war isn't appealing at all. Anyway, if I were leading the country, I would work to seal off the Mexican border. By the way, nearly every terrorist that has been nabbed snuck across it. Isn't it funny that the majority of both parties agree on putting this death nail in America's coffin? You need to open your eyes and quit regurgitating the leftist rhetoric your commie professor (who is likely a dunce) spews at you. If that isn't your problem and you thought this up on your own, then you should see about checking yourself into your nearest mental institution. There are good people there and they can help you.
2007-06-20 18:05:19 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are wrong - Bush was going after WMDs which Saddam had already used on the Kurds and threatened to use elsewhere. He announced to the world he had WMDs. And at the time, EVERYONE in the world believed him, although he might have been lying. But there were a few dead Kurds to lend credence to the boast.
Bush rattled his chains for 6 months before attacking Iraq. Let me ask you - if you had a bunch of crack in your room and the cops pulled up outside your house and said in a loud speaker that they were going to come in and look for crack - what would you do with it?
Look at the map - Syria is just a hop, skip and jump away.
2007-06-20 17:59:30 · answer #4 · answered by Tangerine 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
<< Sure. Now do a little homework. Go back and read the president's speach about the reasons to go into Iraq. Or better yet read this link. I will let John Kerry explain it to you.>>>
was that little speech before or after Bush had Powell pass around some fraudulent Nigerian "yellow Cake" papers, that intelligence agents didn't even have achance to investigate before Bush sent in the troops??
<>
of course it was, our government supplied them with weapons long enough.
The State Department even signed Iraq's request for B. anthracis from an Illinois culture collection. that occurred somewhere after Carter left office, and before Clinton left Arkansas, so you can't blame them.
<
~Mexitalian Republic…, you do realize the difference between stating something, and allowing intelligence agencies to investigate the matter before sending in troops, and not allowing them to do their job before sending in the troops right??
you also do realize the words..."I believe" that precedes a statement of opinion is redundant and can be assumed to be an opinion even without "I believe...", unless supported with verified data from intelligence agencies, right??
just in case you don't, here is an example:
"I believe Saddam has capabilities and means to attack the US."
is the same as
"Saddam has capabilities and means to attack the US."
both can be assumed to be stating the same opinion and concern which would give an indication that it would be supported by the person stating the opinion, to investigate the matter.
You on the other hand, are interpretting it as not an opinion, such as this statment...
"Saddam has capabilities and means to attack the US. Here are aerial photographs of his nuclear facilities, that have been confirmed that high levels of radiation are present, presented by British intelligence, and verified by the CIA to be accurate."
big difference wouldn't you say?
now which did you witness being stated?
2007-06-20 18:05:26 · answer #5 · answered by jj 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, becasue it's a lie! Saddam Husein DID have WMD's, which US troops have found and supported terrorism, even if they had nothing to do with 9/11. And Neocons ARE NOT attacking Iraq because they think it had anything to do with 9/11 or simply because it's a Muslim or Arab nation!!
2007-06-21 01:22:21 · answer #6 · answered by ddey65 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you mean to tell me that the camel flotilla was not ready to sail the Atlantic?? Wow! Was I fooled!
Seriously, I have never read so much "spin" on a topic; the neocons have about 17 ready answers for every objection raised when it comes to this war. (Of course, the only one that makes any sense is that the US needed a "central" place to "control" in the ME.) (And, as Dr Phil asks, "How's that workin' for ya'?" I'd say not too good!)
2007-06-20 19:01:40 · answer #7 · answered by Joey's Back 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know. No matter what evidence we provide from sources you libs trust you'll never get it. Even your party leaders that you libs as a majority follow said that he had capabilities and means to attack the US. I would love to see your credible source of support on your "lie that was disproved". Are you suggesting that leaving Saddam in power is a good thing or are you just mad that the Republican party took him out before you could? Or did the Dems that suggested to Bush (Kerry, Clinton & etc.) that Saddam had WMD's mislead him to try to make him look bad while in office to win the presidency in '04 and now for '08? Hmmmm, I wonder.
2007-06-20 18:10:40 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Neocons are stilling looking for those WMD's!!!!!
and they still believe that iraq was responsible for 9-11 even after their decider told them otherwise.
those 28%ers will never leave Bush's side.
interesting side note here is that when WWII ended, Hitler was defeated, and the holocaust was exposed!!!!!!...... 28% of Germans still supported his A S S!!!!!
2007-06-20 18:03:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
We were not attacked by a country - we were attacked by an ideology of hatred and domination.
And we FINALLY responded after 25 years of simply turning the other cheek.
I think the confrontation with these dirt bags was long over due.
2007-06-20 18:03:50 · answer #10 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋