>We already know the why. It's been said over and over and over again. You've chosen not to listen.
Because he's a bad guy and he has WOMD? There are a lot of world leaders that fit that description. Why aren't we going after them? Why only Iraq? I've asked that several times but nobody has been able to answer with anything but "he's a bad guy and he has WOMD".
And who's going to liberate us from the Bush administration who has taken many of our civil liberties away from us and is looking to take many, many more away when Patriot II gets passed. Did you know under Patriot II I could be thrown in jail without trial for as long as the government wants just for speaking out against Bush. Does that sound like America Land Of The Free to you?
>Because of the events of 9/11 and because we have a republican in the White House who has the guts to make the tough decisions and act on them.
What do the events of 9/11 have to do with Iraq?
>>Saddam hasn't been a threat to anybody in 12 years.
>Your opinion and you're welcome to it.
And you've said nothing to counter it. What has he done in the last 12 years that justifies this illegal invasion. And yes, it's illegal. We are disobeying the U.N. to force Iraq to obey the U.N.
>In case you don't follow the news, we are still in Afghanastan. We've never abandoned our efforts in ridding the world of Bin Laden and his terrorist networks. It just so happens that we have the muscle to fight multiple battles. So that's what we're doing.
After 9/11 Bush said we would not rest until we got Bin Ladin. It's been how long and Bin Ladin is still at large and all we ever hear about from Bush is Saddam. Afghanastan and Bin Ladin have taken a huge back seat to Saddam and that's wrong.
>We've acted against the will of the U.N. after they had proven themselves useless. We we're counting on the U.N. to stand firm with regards to Iraq, which they failed to do. The U.S. is reacting to the situation caused by the U.N.'s ineffectiveness.
The U.N. was not ineffective. There were inspectors there looking for WOMD. If Saddam actually has them then the inspectors would have found them eventually and it would have been done without having to kill innocent civilians many of which were children. And when the inspectors were in Iraq they didn't find anything even though the US kept giving them sites to look at. The inspectors said the US was sending them on wild goose chases. Basically, the US got impatient and nervous the longer the inspectors were there not finding anything. The US didn't want them to find WOMD and they didn't want to give them long enough to look because that wouldn't have given them a reason to invade Iraq so they could get their oil.
>BS. You can't blame everything on Clinton.
Everything? We're talking about one specific instance here and you've said nothing to counter it.
My point is that bad things happen all over the world all the time and the US does nothing about it. Rowanda was one prime example. First he tried to blame it on the Libertarians and then he tried to blame it on Clinton. Who cares why we didn't do anything, the point is we didn't and I'm sure there's many more instances where the US did nothing. I prefer that we do nothing when it doesn't directly affect us. Iraq does not pose a direct threat to the US. Never has, never will. Instead of spending billions and billions of dollars on an illegal invasion we should using that money to fix our own problems. If you hadn't noticed the ecomony is pretty much in the toilet and Bush doesn't even care.
>Care to elaborate? I've been seeing plenty of video of Iraqis cheering and welcoming our troops with open arms. They sure act like people who view themselves on the "winning" side. Yes, there have been civilian casualties, but certainly not as many that would result from the continued reign of a murdering dictator.
I've seen just as many pictures of children that have been killed, but hey at least this one survived, right?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=12821263&method=full&siteid=50143>And how do we focus upon problems at home if we must constantly look over our shoulders for threats coming from abroad? Should we ignore all foreign threats until the enemy is knocking at our front door? If it's all about cost we should learn to recognize those threats and deal with them sooner rather than later. All you have to do is look at the cost of 9/11 to realize that a proactive approach would have cost much less in terms of lives lost and dollars spent.
Explain to me how Saddam is a threat to us.
>So do I. That's why I support any effort that helps rid the world of recognized threats to our way of life.
How is Saddam a threat to our way of life?
This comment was edited on Apr 8, 18:36.