Yes.. im sure Iraq could have a civil war where millions die, the entire middle east destabilizes and an even bigger war ensues. All the while I'm sure you'll be supporting Bush
Nope I'm down with history. I meant in the context of us attacking them. The gulf war wasn't even mentioned in all the arguments (that I saw/heard) leading up to the invasion. LOL we're invaders.
Hey where are the weapons of Mass destruction? Hey why are we still there? We got Saddam and the house of cards . I was a little confused from the beginning 'weapons of mass destruction' was the reason for invading? Didn't find 'em so why not go after Saddam and the house of cards. Am I wrong here? Please correct me if I am. The curent situation in Iraq has no end in site. It begs the question why are we really there .
WMD was NOT the reason for invading. WMD was used in the sales pitch to the UN, the American people and Congress. And i don't think anyone (besides mia maybe) will argue against that.
Most nations that are oppressed and finally fight for freedom and the right to govern themselves end up having a hard time moving forward. Many of them end up in a civil war. It takes time to get there. The US was not built in a day. It's only been a couple years in Iraq. You're the guy standing by the microwave jumping up and down complaining that it is taking too long to cook your hotdog. It's going to take years over there. What did you think, we would just waltz in, set up shop and leave in a couple weeks? Don't the teach US History in school anymore? Did you drop out?
That might not be as far fetched as you think. China can afford to lose 80 million soldiers on the battlefield and still have an enormous army of ground forces available to invade every country in their path.
Removing a nutjob was the reason. Ultimately the reason was summed up during the first post 9/11 state of the union when the president said that we will go after the terrorists and find them were ever they are, and we will also go after the nations that harbor them. That's why we went there. Step outside that box and closed mind for a change So we have to convince the UN before we do anything that concerns US interests? Again, step outside that box. The American public and congress did not need to be sold on it at the time. Post 9/11 everyone jumped on board. WMD's were part of the argument, but a very minute part. The lack of them is the waffle left's way out of responsibility for a war they supported, started, and approved. Hind sight is always 20/20... Must be nice in that box. Nah, there's only a small few who live in boxes. Man it is refreshing to be an independant thinker. Ah to be young and foolish again. Yep, I support freedom. You mean Bush does too? I'm fairly certain that Clinton did, that Ted does, and a lot of lunatics on the left that take it for granted. I'm not sure I understand your logic. Bush to you, is like Nixon to AC... You are obviously fixated on the man for some reason. It's not healthy. But why would they do that when most of those "other countries" buy their goods? Just does not make economic sense.
I don't think anybody who was alive and could watch TV prior to invading Iraq believes that for a minute... well except mindless bush supporters They had their scarey stories all over the news about saddam building nukes, saddam has anthrax, saddam has "remote control drones" that can fly over the the US and drop chemicals on us! Oh no! Invade iraq!!!
There we go again.. Were you dropped on your head as a child? Who is "they"? Sure, Clinton intelligence did elude to the fact that there were WMD's in Iraq. Do I need to provide sound bites of post Clinton supporters like his wife, and Kerry saying just this prior to 9/11 and after 9/11? Well you were a bit younger then, you probably just do not remember.
There you go again, nothing is the current presidents fault, everything is Clintons fault and the lefties who somehow provide bush all his intel Maybe you don't realize this, but i don't have any great love for clinton, kerry or anyone else in the government, they all play the same game and they all serve the same purpose. "They" is our government, and ESPECIALLY GEORGE W BUSH.
For those of you that made it successfully out of high school, there is a tremendous "newish" book on this topic: The Assasins Gate by George Packer http://search.barnesandnoble.com/bookSearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&isbn=0374299633
Nope, everything is Bush's fault. I'm still wondering why he did not do more to prevent those mudslides in the Philippines. Bad Bush, very bad... Nope, only Bush claimed there were WMD's.... Yeah, and monkies might fly out of my butt! Then "they" is WE. We are the government, lest you forget. Once you are old enough to vote you will begin to realize that.
'Convincing' the world at large on the catchy new phrase, "WMD," was the only way the UK could 'legitimately' enter the arena to assist the US in invading Iraq, otherwise the UK could never have mustered the little support they managed to raise. Makes terrific economic sense if you are a country in need of oil and China decides it's going to own the middle east. That way it gets its own oil fields and it can sell (or squeeze) to every other country in the world.
Most of the bombings carried out in Iraq are black ops carried out by US, Israeli, and British Intelligence. Members of the SAS were caught shooting Iraqi cops last year. When they were arrested and detained, the British military broke into the jail and had them released. They were in "deep cover." Under P2OG, the plan is to cause a civil war and balkanize it like they did in Eastern Europe. The longer the US stays in Iraq, the more money Halliburton, Carlyle, and other defense contractors will make. Divide and conquer. The oldest trick in the book. Why on earth would they help Iraq unite so they could stand together?