:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :thumb: :thumb:
Former presidents had plenty of years since the Munich tragedy to do nothing. Clinton had 8 years and did nothing. Bush had less than a year. Olvenice dog and people like him need to get educated!
Look, I'm not trying to get in a pissing match with anyone and I certainly don't want to come across as aligned with OVD, but can someone tell me what the war in Iraq has to do with terrorism? I know it's a dead horse, but since it's continually listed as a reason of why we went to war in Iraq, I will continue to ask because no one has given me an answer that I can accept. SDM and I have debated this subject a few times and he did accurately point out to me that Iraq did have a few terrorist training camps, but so do Syria, Iran, Afghanistan, N. Korea etc. etc. What made Iraqi camps stand out? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and it bothers me when people lump the 2 together. I understand that the intelligence point to Hussein having WMD's, but by WMD's, they were defined as chemical and biological agents. It was a well known fact that he didn't have nukes. My point is, the other countries I mentioned have stockpiles of these same WMD's, so again, why Iraq? For those who don't know, I am a veteran of the first Gulf war. I AM NOT anti-war and I am NOT a Bush-basher. I just believe that the resources in Iraq should've been used to hunt the real terrorist - seeing as how none of them were in Iraq before the war started. As horrible as Saddam Hussein was to his people, the fact remains that none of the problems we see in Iraq today (insurgents, suicide bombers etc.) occurred while he was in power. All we did by invading was destabilize the entire region and alienate ourselves from moderate Islamist who we could've allied ourselves with. And for those who believe the war in Iraq is 'occupying' the terrorist so they don't strike on US soil, I urge you to re-think your position because it's simply not true.
fanatic, start a new thread asking this question & I'm sure people will be glad to talk about it. Let's stick to making OleVeniceDog look like an idiot on this thread.
Because terrorism is more than a group of people in Al Queda, it's an ideology. There is a belief among many people that this ideology can be destroyed through the spread of democracy. Free people don't fly planes through buildings or blow themselves up. Case in point the Germans and French aren't too fond of us, yet their citizens don't commit terrorist acts against Americans. Why Iraq? Because diplomatic relations were non-existent. It was the heart of the Middle East, an easier target in terms of their military rather than say Iran's. Syria wasn't a big enough target and diplomacy is still in progress. Iran as well, their military is much more organized than Iraq's. It would be a harder battle with far more than 1400 dead. The most important point is that diplomacy is still on the table. Also, I think the hope is that Iraq will be the only need for military operations. Iraq proved a point that our threats have force behind them now.
First I knew about the mass graves in Iraq. I was just trying to throw a curveball around you. Second you act like America has no nuclear warheads. We have WMD's we have the power to wipe out any country so what makes us any different then any other country that has bombs and missals? Don't tell me that we aren’t a threat to use them against other countries b/c we have used them in the war against Iraq w/heavy bombing and Afghanistan.
OleVeniceDog wanted to throw us a curveball? By saying a clearly incorrect statement? Well, that makes you look very intelligent & knowledgable. You sir, suck worse than Michael Moore, but luckily you seem to void of any type of talent - much less producing or directing a movie (even though Moore doesn't have much talent in that aspect either).
