Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11

[straffo]

Originally posted by Krusher
We only allow two 4 year terms.  So in 8 years we change our goverment no matter what happens.  

That's the point I don't understand.

The french still have Chirac for a longer period of time.  [/B]

Yes and so ?

Hows that French economy doing anyhow? [/B]

Good ,we are rich enought to support about 10% jobless.

[RTStuka]

Lets not forget the Clinton was launching missles at Iraq and Afganastan on a regular basis. Under the Clinton admin. the CIA actually ordered an assasination on Bin Laden, although they didnt mean too they did, the attempt failed obvisously. Under Clinton we had a very large force of special operations soilders in the middle east running all sorts of missions. But this is exactly what made Clinton the man, he knew how too take care of watermelon and do what needed to be done without pissing everyone off. Infact Clinton could have wasted OBL with a missle strike but there were reports of UAE princes were meeting with him at the same time so he called off the strike. So why doesnt everyone take a deep breath and realize that Bush didnt start this mess and the Dems have done just as much damage.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by AWMac


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.....?

This is a joke right?

I hope so cause it has me laughing to the point of tears

Just on the outside chance your not.
As for the Democrats. How about the last one we had?

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Ouaibe
So true!

Dont laugh,
We're planning oon liberating France next.

should take all of about an hour and a half:)

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by crowMAW
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?

Yes and we see now just how well the policy of containment worked on NK now dont we.

[crowMAW]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Yes and we see now just how well the policy of containment worked on NK now dont we.

Why I had no idea that we had in place the same kind of restrictions against NK as we did against Iraq.  WOW...that should be some news that most of NK is a No-Fly Zone.  No wonder that the North Koreans are starving...we have a blockade and food-for-oil program going there (sucks for them that they have no oil to trade for food).

Try again...

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by crowMAW
Why I had no idea that we had in place the same kind of restrictions against NK as we did against Iraq.  WOW...that should be some news that most of NK is a No-Fly Zone.  No wonder that the North Koreans are starving...we have a blockade and food-for-oil program going there (sucks for them that they have no oil to trade for food).

Try again...

The no fly program and restrictions didnt seem to stop France, and germany from shipping war material to Iraq now did it?
And the oil for food program turned into little more then a clandistein operation to benifit Saddam.
Just as restrictions on NK have NK's peopel starving yet they still managed to afford to build both Nuc Weapons and a delivery system that can reach the US

Yes your right. containment works rather well:rolleyes:

[straffo]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The no fly program and restrictions didnt seem to stop France, and germany from shipping war material to Iraq now did it?

[BEEP][BEEP][BEEP] BS.

[Eagler]

the majority of AMERICANS do not think Bush "LIED" or did anything "WRONG" by invading Iraq .. it is a vocal minority and bbs wimps making all the noise...

11/02 will bear this out - big time

LANDSLIDE BUSH!

[john9001]

north korea had nothing to do with 9/11, why is john heinz-kerry picking on them?

[Jasta]

Dumbest argument ever posed, because it is useless. We all know and knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now, the reason Iraq is important to the war on terror is because Saddam has MANY ties with Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists.

1. Saddam gave $500,000 US to a man by the name of Al-Zawahiri, at a time when he was a founding member of Al Qaeda, and bin laden's right hand man.
2. It is a known fact that before the removal of Saddam, he paid $30,000 to many families of Palestinian terrorists who killed more than 10 israelis.
3. Saddam supplied small arms and plastic explosives to Taliban fighters who fled from Afghanistan during the American liberation.


The 9-11 commission said "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11", and every dem in the place goes nuts! But as I remember, bush always said that Iraq had connections with Al-Qaeda, but I dont recall ever hearing him say connections with 9/11.

Its a major misquoting by the dems, and if I am wrong, please correct and I'll shut up forever.

[TweetyBird]

The problem with the narrow viewed conservatism in this forum, is its hate list is so long - its starts to stink of whacko.

Its become common to attack any non-US citizen. I think some are going over the deep end.

[Yeager]

Bush did the correct thing clearing out old joe hussein.  The greater problem lay with the limp sisters and those that are so eager for power they will influence their own country losing ANOTHER war just to be in the oval office.

Iraq HAD to be liberated, Iraq HAS to be free, it can and should be done and you KNOW IT CAN BE DONE, but kerry -and every other idiotic american who supports him, will do their best to see it does not get done.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by straffo
[BEEP][BEEP][BEEP] BS.

BEEP BEEP BEEP FACT

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Jasta
Dumbest argument ever posed, because it is useless. We all know and knew that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Now, the reason Iraq is important to the war on terror is because Saddam has MANY ties with Al Qaeda and Palestinian terrorists.

1. Saddam gave $500,000 US to a man by the name of Al-Zawahiri, at a time when he was a founding member of Al Qaeda, and bin laden's right hand man.
2. It is a known fact that before the removal of Saddam, he paid $30,000 to many families of Palestinian terrorists who killed more than 10 israelis.
3. Saddam supplied small arms and plastic explosives to Taliban fighters who fled from Afghanistan during the American liberation.


The 9-11 commission said "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11", and every dem in the place goes nuts! But as I remember, bush always said that Iraq had connections with Al-Qaeda, but I dont recall ever hearing him say connections with 9/11.

Its a major misquoting by the dems, and if I am wrong, please correct and I'll shut up forever.

Lets not forget that Bush all along has said "We will go after terrorists and the countries that support them"

NOBODY can deny that Iraq supported Terrorists organasations.