Why dont we ask Clinton and Kerry first?
2007-12-08 12:44:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
5⤋
the only vehement argument coming from people who help the invasion and profession of Iraq is dwelling in the 'Plan B' of 'regime exchange'. It is going some thing like this: Saddam grow to be an evil tyrant who oppressed and gassed his very own human beings so we've been real to invade. there are a number of stuff incorrect with this argument: one million) sure, he grow to be a tyrant, however the reason of invading grow to be with the aid of fact a) he had operational hyperlinks with AQ (fake) and b) he had a great stockpile of WMDs (fake). 2) He gassed his very own human beings. sure, he did, in 1988...and there is info to help the declare that he grow to be provided with the hardware to realize this by making use of a delightful US government. Now, despite if he wasn't provided by making use of the US, why in the worldwide did it take 15 years to united statesa. him from capability? And if the purpose of the present US administration is to stamp out tyranny, why do no longer they do some thing comparable for Burma, Zimbabwe or Sudan? there is no validity to Plans A OR B. The justification for an invasion of Iraq grow to be equipped on a framework of heinous lies, and there is no quantity of bloated gun-toting jingoistic fearmongering rhetoric that would alter that certainty.
2016-10-10 21:14:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by stealy 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
YOUR QUESTION HAS NO ANSWER AS THERE IS NO ...LIE BASE...
I really wish I new what this guy was smoken. Btw folks, G Bush handed out the paper work to every one and then used that same paper work to goto war with. This is the reason everybody had that paper work..
Btw folks, G Bush said Bin Laden is not a threat. Now he goes off and talks about war denial and that Bin Laden is just like Hitler? Folks I dont know about you but this it total BS from this so called man. He lied folks and Iraq will always be a lie.
Somebody said fight them here, fight them there. Folks we should be in Afgan finishing up that task. That is the real reason and thus should be the only reason to fight the terrorist.
I am so tired of hearing how we are doing great things in Iraq. Folks Iraq is a LIE, what part of lie dont you understand. Violence begets violence so this so called war on terror is pointless in Iraq!!! Its full of lies and he keeps trying to cover up this lie with other lies.
Bagdad is not Iraq, they need to stop trying to report that they are making things better in Iraq. Bagdad is not Iraq folks, so you cant say Iraq is getting better because of one city. Lies folks, lies lies lies. We have to clean up this so called lie of a war and get the hell out of that country. We need to be in ;lkj Afgan finishing up that task, the one that on stand bye and has been sense 2003! Bin Laden needs to be in the center square with four horses to quarter his arsk western style.
Send his parts back to his family so that they can do what they do with their dead. Bury, what ever.....
You people that support Iraq are the main reason our troops are suffering, and or dead.
God said nothing good can come from a lie. Lies and more lies to cover up the other lies. Iraq is a lie folks!!!
2007-12-08 13:05:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
First, the war in Iraq wasn't "lie based". At most, it was misinformation based. And, if you don't understand the distinction, then I am sorry for you.
Iraq was not involved in the attack on Sep 11th. Iran (really, Sadam) was attacked for providing safe haven for terrorists and stating that they were seeking WMDs --- leading reasonable men to assume that WMDs would be used for terrorist attacks in the future.
2007-12-08 12:53:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by ML 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Isn't it disingenuous to keep saying Bush lied when he was saying the same thing everyone else was saying? Th only difference between Bush versus the UN and some senators is that Bush took action. The rhetoric was the same all around.
-
EDIT: The whole "Bush said Iraq planned 9/11" is a lefty creation.
-
EDIT: Well, since everyone agreed he was running WMD's and he was shooting at our planes every day, seemed like a likely place for the next 9/11 to come from. I think it was clearly stated that we would not wait until the next attack to do something.
2007-12-08 12:48:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by leo080564 1
·
1⤊
3⤋
I think calling it a 'lie' is a bit unfair, Gulf of Tonkin was a lie, Iraq was more of a misinformation thing.
The attack on 9/11 was carried out by your Muslim terrorists, and it was believed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had ties to terrorists, like most Islamic Republics do.
2007-12-08 12:47:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by S P 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
What could Bush have said to justify it that would have been honest? While we're in the neighborhood, we might as well take out Saddam. He's a pain in the neck. That pretty well sums it up. Actually, some how I can visualize him saying something that completely unprofound.
2007-12-08 13:08:23
·
answer #7
·
answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
YOUR QUESTION HAS NO ANSWER AS THERE IS NO ...LIE BASE...what part of national security is not bolstered by cowardice confuses you? the idea here is confront al qaeda there or here, its just that simple. god it would be nice if you liberals took a lesson from history
uss cole
clinton no response
african embassy bombings
clinton no response
wtc one
clinton no response
at least six chances to capture or kill bin laden in sudan
clinton no response
wtc two
bush RESPONSE
no known successfull attacks on us soil since
SEE A PATTERN HERE LIBERAL???
to answer your question, i validate it on the results above. i need no more justification and as a nine eleven survivor from nyc i find your attitude both sad, sickening and a mockery of the thousands who died there.
.....liberals...gotta love em(sic)
2007-12-08 12:51:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by koalatcomics 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
I would speculate as an addendum to the page where the diversionary suicide bombings were encouraged and families paid by Hussein for their young mens lives. Or when they bluffed the intell. to make it look like they had WMD's to keep U.S. intell resources tied up and engaged in a witch hunt.
2007-12-08 12:56:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Chi Bro,
In my opinion we went after the wrong country. After all where did 15 of the hijackers come from.
I rest my case, it wasn't Afghanistan or Iraq.
2007-12-08 12:46:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by Bubba 6
·
3⤊
1⤋
I know it doesn't make sense to small people like us.
But we must remember GOD told Bush to attack Iraq
2007-12-08 12:56:33
·
answer #11
·
answered by Guerilla Liberal fighter 3
·
1⤊
1⤋