Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

[Gunslinger]

THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT IS DUMB!!!!

Of course they didn't.  That does not mean Sadam was not or would not be a future threat.

So if in 2002 there was a threat but they weren't linked to AQ we should just let them be?????

This clintonesque type of thinking is what causes an even like 9/11 and all the other attacks.

[ramzey]

can you guarantee US will not turn against whole world and conquer other countries for imagined reason?

[rpm]

I believe the point is we shifted focus from an actual target, while creating a greater hatred for the US amongst the average middle east muslim. Thus, creating a larger threat for the actual target to manipulate against us and the world in general.

Oh yeah, the administration actually saying Iraq was involved, you know lying, may have something to do with it as well.

[Nash]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
"This clintonesque type of thinking is..."

You mean sane?

[AWMac]

Face the facts..... every Prez we've had that was Democratic....screwed watermelon up to the point a Republican Prez had to clean up the mess,,,,

Look you Liberal asssholes when was the last time  a Democratic Prez served more than 4 years in the White House... and now tell me the last times a Republican Prez served more than 4 years.....?

Get over it you Kerry Mongers... there is no free ride anymore!

*insert middle finger here*

BTW look at all the DemoCraps records in the Senate and the Congress.... Then talk to me.


2 cents worth.

Do you want a Dollars worth?

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by AWMac
when was the last time  a Democratic Prez served more than 4 years in the White House... and now tell me the last times a Republican Prez served more than 4 years.....?

Clinton and Reagan.  What point are you making with that question?

[Nash]

Originally posted by AWMac
2 cents worth.

Do you want a Dollars worth?

Ehm.... Yeah, sure. I want a dollar's worth.

[AWMac]

Here's a Nickel's worth.... Kerry has a plan.... yet only Kerry knows the plan.   Not even his Muppet Edwards knows the plan....


Flip.......






















Flop

[straffo]

So instead of a flip floper you prefer someone wrong during 4 more years ?


rotlf

What your really need is a King or an Emperor.

[Staga]

Originally posted by AWMac
Face the facts..... every Prez we've had that was Democratic....screwed watermelon up to the point a Republican Prez had to clean up the mess,,,,

Look you Liberal asssholes when was the last time  a Democratic Prez served more than 4 years in the White House... and now tell me the last times a Republican Prez served more than 4 years.....?

Get over it you Kerry Mongers... there is no free ride anymore!

*insert middle finger here*

BTW look at all the DemoCraps records in the Senate and the Congress.... Then talk to me.


2 cents worth.

Do you want a Dollars worth?

LOL with the increasing foreign debt you better ditch the Dollars and change to Euros; Your $ has lost 40% of it's value compared to Euro in few years...

LOL a frigging Ruble has soon better value

[Ouaibe]

What your really need is a King or an Emperor.

So true!

[oboe]

AWMac,  I don't know where you get your information but it's just plain wrong.   Odds are, you were better off economically under Clinton than you have been under President Bush.    (Unless of course, you are a millionaire - if that's the case please accept my apologies and congratulations).

Look at the chart of National Debt vs GDP posted in another thread and you'll see the people who think there is a free ride.

If you really want to face an ugly fact, realize that Republicans are NOT fiscally conservative (to my embarrassment and anguish I might add).   I'm not sure why, but it seems like the people smearing the "tax and spend!" liberals are really "cut taxes and spend! conservatives.    The only theory I can come up with is that the conservatives in power are already so wealthy, it won't matter a whit to them if the country is bankrupted.

[Krusher]

We only allow two 4 year terms.  So in 8 years we change our goverment no matter what happens.  The french still have Chirac for a longer period of time.  

Hows that French economy doing anyhow?

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Of course they didn't.  That does not mean Sadam was not or would not be a future threat.

So if in 2002 there was a threat but they weren't linked to AQ we should just let them be?????

You have to consider the risk posed by the Saddam.  How much of a future risk was he compared to other potential threats.  Was he an immediate threat posing a clear and present danger?  No.  He was contained.  2/3 of his country was a no fly zone. The northern quarter of his country had an independent Kurdnish government. He had very little opportunity to spread outside of Iraq.  He was a problem for the Iraqi people...and they should have been the ones to take care of him, rather than using my tax dollars and our blood to provide freedom to a bunch of people who didn't care enough about it to fight for it themselves.

What countries were more dangerous threats to the US at the time?  Was North Korea a greater threat?  We all know that NK has ballistic missiles that have been tested that could reach our northwestern shores.  NK made no secret that it had the capability to produce nukes...not just one, but many.

Which country was the greater risk?  Iraq or NK?  And yet we still chose to invade Iraq in a move that even George the First believed was foolhardy.  Was GHWB being Clintonesque in his thinking?

[Torque]

Originally posted by AWMac
Face the facts..... every Prez we've had that was Democratic....screwed watermelon up to the point a Republican Prez had to clean up the mess,,,,
 

Er...wasn't it Reagan who took Saddam off the known terrorist list and supplied him with WMD, uhm....what was the prime reason given for invading Iraq again?