Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
I understand that this is the rationalization, but I don't support it. Again, once the troops were given the responsibility to fight, the american people had the responsibility to support their troops.
|
And how do we support our troops? By making sure that they don't die in vein.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
I've said it before Ill say it again. No I don't think it was a mistake. It might have been poorly implemented, but not a mistake. No other country's army was "officially" involved in 9/11, yet someone had to pay, for a variety af reasons. No leading world power should be allowed to be attacked like that and not have the right to retaliation. It would set a terrible precedent.
|
No evidence exists linking Iraq, Saddam, or any Iraqi official to 9/11. Does that register with you yet? Bush himself has said that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, desite what they said back in 2003 and 2004. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq has never attacked the US. They lacked the means and the will. The "leading world power" invaded a soverign nation based on no real evidence. None. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by powerclown
Again this goes back to the first question in this post. Something major needed to be done post-9/11. Every rational nation on earth condemned 9/11. There needed to be a paradigm change. The americans didn't hit Iraq out of an ambition to invade, conquer and enslave the entire middle east like the germans wanted to do to europe, so the german analogy doesn't stand. Globalization means defending the US is more than just standing at the border waiting for an attack.
|
Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and we invaded Iraq because of an ambition to instal a puppet government on one of the largest oil sources on the planet, so the german analogy is actually apt. No, we aren't trying to commit genocide, though a 150,000 death count in Iraq is hardly inconsequential, but we're the evil invaders in this tale.