For those that wonder "why war?"!!!

[TxDieselKid]

Nuff Said



Andrew

 

[bmoeller]

DITTO!

 

[Sled Puller]

... . "We will make no distinction between terrorists, and those that harbor them... "



End of arguements for Iraq, because they are in 9-11 up to their chins.



They should play that every hour on the hour, on every network, becuse too many have forgotten... ... ... ...

 

[coldsteel]

Well worth goin to war for. . but I thought osama was in Afghanistan?... SSomebody fill me in on some info im missing?, I didn't realize Iraq was involved in the WTC Attacks..... I thought we attacked Saddam because of the weapons of mass destruction, and his Human rights record? I thought we were suppose to be liberators of the Iraqis not there to wage war for revenge for the WTC?

 

[Rams-n-Hogs]

My guess is Saddam was involved somehow in the WTC attacks. I think one of the reasons for "liberating Iraq" is:

... . "We will make no distinction between terrorists, and those that harbor them... "

There is no doubt Saddam is a terrorist, and needs to be relieved of duty. I think it boils down to we need to get him first, before he gets us. This war has been brought to America's soil, and I personally don't think it's over. (JMO) At least we don't have an administration that is just rolling over and playing dead, like we could have had. And yes, Sled Puller is right, too many people have forgotten.



Jim

 

[Sled Puller]

It is all connected, Coldsteel, Saddam was in bed with Osama, so that was reason enough to go after him.

He also has weapons that he is not allowed to have under conditions of surrender, from the last war, which, common sense tells us, he will supply terrorists with them eventually, if not already.



The human rights thing is just to make an ugly business warm and fuzzy.

If anyone gave a crap about human rights, the UN would have taken care of regimes like Saddam long ago.



We have yet to wage war for revenge on the WTC, attacking an enemy who has attacked us, in hopes to disarm them so they can't do it again, is hardly revenge.



Revenge would have been nuking the entire middle east, end game.

(money and lives ahead, no doubt. )



I hope Bush keeps his word, and goes on to the next cesspool, after Iraq, whoever it may be.

 

[DSteinel]

Originally posted by Sled Puller

It is all connected, Coldsteel, Saddam was in bed with Osama, so that was reason enough to go after him.

He also has weapons that he is not allowed to have under conditions of surrender, from the last war, which, common sense tells us, he will supply terrorists with them eventually, if not already.



The human rights thing is just to make an ugly business warm and fuzzy.

If anyone gave a crap about human rights, the UN would have taken care of regimes like Saddam long ago.



We have yet to wage war for revenge on the WTC, attacking an enemy who has attacked us, in hopes to disarm them so they can't do it again, is hardly revenge.



Revenge would have been nuking the entire middle east, end game.

(money and lives ahead, no doubt. )



I hope Bush keeps his word, and goes on to the next cesspool, after Iraq, whoever it may be.

SLEDPULLER FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004Oo.

 

[Neal Cassady]

Iraqi Artwork

http://www-cgi.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/26/sprj.irq.mural