You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
No connection, huh?
- Thread starter DRZinn
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
ARperson
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.
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.
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.
DRZinn
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!
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!
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.