1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

No connection, huh?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by DRZinn, Oct 25, 2004.

  1. DRZinn

    DRZinn Well-Known Member

  2. ARperson

    ARperson Well-Known Member

    I have long held the notion that all the reasons given for entering Iraq were merely icing on the cake. Saddam's violation of the treaty he signed should be sufficient reason enough to take the action we did. By hinging the justification on "intel" we always run the risk of being burned. But by basing it on the known actions of the "bad guy" there is no doubt.

    I also believe Saddam was too smart to ally directly with the terrorist groups, though no doubt his money made its way into their pockets.

    But since when have the facts ever mattered to morons.
  3. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Iraq was only one of a great many Islamic terrorist states. It may well have been the most deserving of our interest; embarking upon yet another land war in Asia, however, wasn't the intelligent way to solve the Islamic terrorism problem.
  4. DRZinn

    DRZinn Well-Known Member

    Even if there were never any WMD, even if Saddam had been completely cooperative with the UN inspectors, even if he hadn't been starving his own people to pay off the French and build palaces, even if eh hadn't supported terrorists....

    ON A WEEKLY BASIS he shot missiles at US planes enforcing the no-fly zones! That alone is an act of war, and justifies removing him from power!

Share This Page