Posted on 11/06/2008 7:40:01 PM PST by googul
Hi,
I'm 21, and not very keen when it comes to politics. My father stands in the political spectrum on the extreme right; my mother on the extreme left (now, if both wouldn't have been so "extreme," they could come together to have meaningful exchanges I could learn from... but nope.) Anyway, I decided today I would become a little opinionated! I'll ask a few questions here, and I reckon I'll get a reply with a slightly right tinge :) I'll ask similar questions on a slightly leftist forum, and shall decide per the responses from the two sides and see where things lands me to shape (or form) my political beliefs. Occasionally, I'll post responses from other locations here that can be addressed, and vice versa. Finally, I have one request: please cite your arguments to reasonable sources as needed. And please do excuse me if I say something silly or uninformed, I'm not an exceptionally smart cookie.
To hit things off, I'll start with this: As the 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudi Arabian, and most of the Al-Qaeda members reside (allegedly) in the terrains of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, why was Iraq invaded?
Thanks very much for your time, -TSS
Oh, darln’, are YOU ever in for a ride! Fasten your seatbelts. This may not be pretty. ;^)
Welcome to Free Republic.
Since Desert Storm, there had been a no-fly zone that we patrolled. Iraq fired on our planes repeatedly.
Also: 1999 VIDEO: ABC News Report Linking Saddam Hussein And Osama Bin Laden. He supported and paid terrorists.
to be brief, 2 things:
1) the Bush Doctrine was based on preventing terrorism and states that support terrorists. Saddam funded terrorism in the middle east, especially against Israel. He paid families to send their sons in with bombs strapped on them.
2) Saddam had violated 17+ UN mandates that he had agreed to in 1991, and the US in 1998 under Clinton changed the policy of our country to regime change. After one final ultimatum, we removed him.
Iraq was invaded because it was playing games with UN inspectors that (A) violated the terms of the UN ceasefire from the Gulf War (the conditions under which the US stopped attacking) and (B) made it look like Saddam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction programs, something that almost everyone believed at the time. Saddam Hussein didn’t take several opportunities to avoid being invade for who knows what reason. I suspect he believed it wouldn’t actually happen. In the bigger scheme of things, he was a bad guy so even if we were wrong about everything (and you may believe we were), it was still a net plus to remove him and the risk of him getting weapons of mass destruction is that he might pass them off to terrorists, giving them a lot more bang the next time they attacked. In summary, he seemed to be posing a large threat, he was a bad guy, and the moral risks of being wrong about him were non-existent. He was a bad guy and Iraq will be better without him. North Korea would be even a much better target but the risks there are greater, because it could involve China.
They would not account for their WMD. They violated the terms of the 1st Gulf war peace treaty. They violated several UN resolutions. They harbored terrorists. They had previously used WMD on their own people and on Iranians. They had tried to assassinate a former president. They were paying rewards to terrorists that were bombing our allies. They locked onto our aircraft with missile batteries hundreds of times.
My turn-why did we attack Germany when it was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor?
Saddam Hussein signed a treaty with the US, and Saddam Hussein repeatedly broke that treaty.
I suppose I should add that the US and UK maintained a no-fly zone over parts of Iraq and even attacked targets every now and then in Iraq throughout the 1990s so the idea that we were ever really at peace with Iraq after the Gulf War is a mistaken one.
If I recall correctly, the legislation that authorized us to invade Iraq was passed by Clinton. He didn’t get around to actually orchestrating the invasion, but he was involved in setting the stage. When Islamic Terrorists hit us on 9/11, we took action to take out their biggest state sponsor — someone who had been flaunting UN resolutions for years, someone who had been firing missiles at US jets (flying where they were authorized to fly) for years. It was the right thing to do.
30 seconds that will amaze you...
At 21 you have no experience in the real world and I don’t think you should be able to vote unless you pay taxes. I think your vote should count more in proportion to the taxes you pay. Call me crazy, but it is easy to vote for things that you won’’t have to pay for.
Are you and General Mosby the same person?
To make lefties rant and rave about stupid crap.
Honestly, Iraq was invaded because of human-rights violations. Hussien killed thousands of his fellow countrymen (though not ethnically the same) with chemical weapons. (Not to mention his army and civil police force’s corruption.) WMDs were not a part of the initial, main liberation, but were hounded on by the media until the lack thereof was a major item.
(I live in a desert, it would be absurdly easy to hide them out in the wilderness, stashed somewhere out of the way. Also, we gave Sadam enough “we’re coming” time/warning that anything he could have had could have been shipped out to a foreign ally and retrieved later, after making a big stink at the UN and demanding reparations.)
Many will not admit it, but President Bush HAS done a lot of good, especially concerning human rights. (Embryonic stem-cell ban, human-cloning ban, talking to China about their oppression of Christians [in person], ‘Mexico City Policies’ [which forbid federal funding of Abortion], and much more.)
Also, I was in Iraq about a year ago, and I can attest that things were not nearly as bad there on the ground where I was as the media would have one believe.
Almost no one remembers that Saddam Hussein was paying $25,000 to the relatives of each Palestinian suicide bomber in Israel. State sponsored terrorism against an ally? Go ahead and google it. It is rarely mentioned.
Additionally, with Afghanistan on one side of Iran and Iraq on the other, establishing democracies on both sides could have beneficial pressure on Iran.
Let me be the first to ask the question - is someone going to keep track of the enlistment quotas for the services? I can’t see how Obama thinks he will increase our military with what I anticipate as low morale (start thinking Blackhawk Down or ask anyone trapped in the service while Carter was President).
Snips from his speech after the attack:
Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
-President BIll clinton
I don’t trust you completely. You say you’re not particularly smart but your grammar, punctuation, spelling & style speak of either a very highly educated 21 year old or an older person posing as a younger person to lay a trap. You don’t come off as ill informed or unintelligent, so I’m wary that you’re trying to stump someone here. I guess I suspect trolling. If I’m wrong, forgive me, but what you say & how you say it conflict.
The evil Iraq regime needed to be taken down anyway & had to be controlled as evidenced by their invasion of Kuwait years earlier. We were attacked on 9/11 & seasoned military strategists understood that we could fight the war here or take it there. We could accomplish two goals in one here. We could take out Saddam, take control of a country in the middle of the terrorists network & take control of much of their wealth by seizing control of the oil supplies in Iraq.
When you’re asking yourself these questions, why don’t you take a moment to reflect on the fact that Islamic fundamentalists hate us & have picked a war with us. We don’t want to war with them, but they wish to see us assimilated or annihilated. You’re 21 so you’ve seen Star Trek. Islamic terrorists are like the Borg. You assimilate or die. Would you rather the war with them be fought on American soil?
possibly by what happened on 12/11/1941?
Btw, I wouldn't do that. It could get you banned on one or both forums. Read your answers and decide for yourself.
Yep. You don’t need to be attacked. Once a state of war exists, its on.
Because France was too easy.
Where can I find this speech? I would like to bookmark it next time some lib claims that Iraq and Bush’s reasons for invading it were lies - Bush lied, people died. Blah, Blah, Blah.
we can fight them there...or Here (think)....these other fine people might be able "to flesh-out" a better answer...I certainly hope so. 
I have a question for you, are your mom and dad still married?
“I don’t think you should be able to vote unless you pay taxes”
Wow - I have been thinking that for a while...of course, the lefties would say that everyone pays taxes (buying gas, clothing, etc)...ugh...
I urge you to take note of the difference in how they respond to your questions.
I have no doubt that you will see more obscenity, more offensive attacks against Bush, Republicans, Christians, conservatives than here, more hatefulness.
I have a feeling that well-thought out answers to your questions will be lost amongst all the hate-filled vitriol.
C-SPAN Rewind: Gore Blasts Bush Father for Ignoring Iraq Terror Ties (DRUDGE TITLE)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1849018/posts
Chilling Confirmation - Yes, Saddam Hussein was an Islamofascist threat.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1991095/posts
Evidence of Iraq/Terrorism Connection?
1. Remind the left that every single Democrat of note said in 1998 that Iraq’s WMD posed a danger to the United States.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972389/posts
2. Remind the left that Clinton’s Justice Department obtained a federal indictment of Osama bin Laden which stated that AQ had a deal with Iraq. They agreed not to attack Iraq in exchange for weapons development.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/985906/posts
3. 9/11 Commission reaffirms Bush administration view of Iraq/AQ ties.
June 21, 2004. RNC.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1157478/posts
4. Long List of Clinton Administration Officials who Believed There was an AQ/Iraq connection.
July 12, 2004. NewsMax.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1169397/posts
5. List of CIA and various Reports regarding Iraq’s support for terrorists, terrorism and AQ.
September 16, 2004. The Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/631slkle.asp
6. Osama bin Laden was considered an Iraqi Intelligence asset.
October 14, 2004. National Review.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1246505/posts
Funny how in the 90’s the world was concerned about the growing relationship between OBL and Saddam and now the left is revising history.
Saddam reaching out to OBL
January 1, 1999. Newsweek
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158277/posts
ABC news reports on the Osama/Saddam connections
January 14, 1999. ABC News
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1229608/posts?page=1
Osama and Saddam Work Together
January 27, 1999. Laurie Mylroie interview. She is a former Clinton terrorism czar.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158482/posts
A Much Shunned Terrorist Takes Refuge In Iraq (Abu Nidal)
New York Times. January 1999.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1433610/posts
Western Nightmare: Saddam and OBL versus the World. Iraq recruited OBL.
February 6, 1999. The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,798270,00.html
Saddam’s Link to OBL
February 6, 1999. The Guardian
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/866105/posts
Saddam offered asylum to bin Laden
February 13, 1999. AP
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1158274/posts
Son of Saddam coordinates with OBL.
Iraqi Special Ops coordinates with Bin Laden’s terrorist activities.
August 6, 1999. Yossef Bodansky, National Press Club
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/951911/posts
That and more here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts?q=1&&page=151
As for 19 being Saudis and Al Qaeda residing in Afghanistan... We did hit them in Afghanistan; we did destroy Al Qaeda or, conservatively speaking, disabled them. I don't see any reason to attack Saudi Arabia just because highjackers were of Saudi origin. It would be like attacking Argentina to hit Che Guevara. Al Qaeda has Americans. Should we hit ourselves?
Effective response never has extracting payback as a primary goal. Primary goal is to remove those who are planning the next attacks and to discourage others who think that such acts could be a viable option. Going against surrogates, you'll be chasing ghosts.
You might hold a different opinion whether Saddam was a danger on scale of 9/11. I think he was a bigger danger and in post 9/11 world no responsible statesman can afford to leave a threat of a devastating multi-casualty hit until such hit actually materializes. You have to deal with it as early as possible. Crushing Hitler in 1938 would cost a lot, but a lot less than cost in blood and treasury of the WWII.
I remember in 1990 during 1st Gulf War (when Saddam hit Kuwait), Israel was forced to deliver a message to Saddam - if you hit us with WMD, start watching your Rolex. In 30 min your major cities will be reduced to ashes.
Israel is a small country, very limited in its options. Do you prefer we risk having to use nukes on Middle East? Do you really think it is a better option to have a situation when we will be forced to do that? I don’t think so. President has to make very tough choices all the time. I think President Bush made the correct one. Al Qaeda is practically gone; risk of major war is gone, too. Threats remain (Iran being an example) and we have to deal with them, too. In what way? Well, if we could remove ayatollahs in 3 weeks with relatively small casualties – I’d say go for it, make the world secure. Unfortunately with Iran it’s not an option. And what to do about new threats is what Presidency all about.
I like the idea proposed by Heinlein in "Starship Troopers" where only citizens could vote and citizens were by definition anyone who had served in the military. Everyone was free to choose to join the military or not, but if you did not, you were a non-voting civilian, not a citizen. Heinlein thought only those willing to die for their country should exercise something as powerful as the franchise.
“I like the idea proposed by Heinlein in “Starship Troopers” where only citizens could vote and citizens were by definition anyone who had served in the military.”
Uh, no.
The answer which I like is that we cleaned up a swamp...a breeding ground.
Terrorism was breeding all over that region ...Saudi Arabia is not a place we can do much about except push the government to be more vigilant . The Saudi family was not harboring or protecting terrorists. Bin Laden was a threat to them as well as to us ...however they were too tolerant of the jihad movement. By eradicating Saddam who was a threat to us and to the region we accomplished a lot of our objectives.... not least of which is intelligence gathering.And we have changer the geo political terrain so that terrorism is less likely to flourish
Because Saddam Hussein consistently paid $20,000+ to the families of suicide bombers. He also constantly violated terms of the cease fire, including operating in the no fly zone. Furthermore, he used illicit money from the Oil For Food program to rebuild his illegal weapons of mass destruction program, trading vouchers for barrels of oil for money, weapon components and dual use items.
Do you like cheese?
Thank you!
One more thing
If you have a group of people who believe that it is God’s will for them to blow up innocent people and further they believe that America is the embodiment of evil, how should one convince to them that it is a bad idea?
The left will say the we should spend money and educate them and reason with them and hope they will like us.(they think poverty and ignorance has generated these ideas..... but ignore the fact that the jihadist who attcked us were educated and wealthy)
Read up on the kamakazi pilots of WW2...the same dynamic applied.
I think by killing terrorists you not only eliminate threats but it may become obvious to them that God is not necessarily on their side. If everyone I knew in a movement was getting slaughtered I would certainly question the movement.
The lefts idea that we are causing terrorism is BS
To begin, we had the right to invade because Iraq was in violation of some 13 or so UN resolutions, including firing on our patrol planes almost daily. The UN (as much as they detest admitting) sanctioned the use of force for the violations, the resolutions included the provision if the they were not met . Saddam had financed terror activities trough out the Middle East for years, even while he was under the UN's watch. Activities that he was involved in included payments to Palestinian families of homicide bombers as well as hosting training facilities for terror groups (including AQ in the North region). Congress approved the use of force as well, this business about Iraq being an illegal war is baseless.
OK, this really doesn't get to the heart of THE war. It would seem more likely we, the US, would have just ran a few bombing operations or deep patrols into Iraq to improve Saddam's attitude. That would be more in line with what the US and her allies had done historically. Why the big move? Weapons of mass destruction? Maybe. WMD is the #2 priority for Homeland Security, behind the fight against terror. In spite of media reports of no WMDs found, there was much recovered. Many thousand metric tons of yellow-cake (remember the Wilsons telling us there was no Iraqi interest in yellow-cake?) The final shipment of this yellow-cake was safely transported to Canada for processing into nuclear power just a few months ago. It was secretly transported to avoid terrorist's intervention. We knew of much of Saddam's addition WMD arsenal, including Saran gas artillery illegally supplied by the French and Russians). These stockpiles were cataloged after Gulf war I. They were monitored for years until the UN was abruptly invited to leave by Sadddam. We lost track of the known stockpiles. A problem to be sure.
For many though this still didn't pass the smell test. It was (and still is) a big move in human life and National Treasure. So why?
Some hypothesize about some revenge that George W felt he needed to exact personally on Saddam because of a assassination attempt against George Sr a few years earlier. I think this make good reading and I even like the notion. However, there is nothing other than a cool theory to support the idea. If I were to write a semi-fictional book about the days prior to the invasion decisions, I would probably slip the thought into a conversation somewhere. It makes a good Texas sub-plot.
The real reason to put boots on the ground in Iraq: Remember, we had the capability and the option to pound them from the air and with cruise missiles and sorties. Boots on the ground is the key. We, along with the Israelis, were aware for some time of the nuclear progress Iran had been making. We also were not confident Acmadina-nut-job could be pressured into a nuclear agreement we and the region could live with (literally). Understand Acmadinajad is controlled largely by the mullahs. The guidance he had been getting from those hardliners was frightening at best. We needed (and we still do) a base to conduct operations from with respect to Iran (intel, special ops and combat if necessary). The successful establishment of a presence in Iraq would force Iran to behave (ok, maybe not force, but it would apply pressure that we could not otherwise). If we do not get Iran to stand down their bomb program, the Israelis will. They have to, their survival hinges on it.
It would not be desirable to launch operations and work from carriers in the small waters of the gulf with enemies on nearly all sides. Having a base in Iraq and a seaport to easily supply the regional forces IS, this is still true today, (does Barak read FR? I hope he is listening) paramount in successfully thwarting a nuclear disaster between Iran and Israel.
Everyone around the world would suffer from the economic and environmental fallout from the nuclear fight. Read "On the Beach" about the world's health after nuclear combat.
I'm sure I left out some additional plots thought-lines. And I am sure there is more that we'll never know. My FR friends will correct my omissions and God will know the rest. I hope this helps.
Saddam Hussein signed a cease-fire agreement to end the first Iraq war (Desert Storm). This agreement allowed Hussein to stay in power provided he would comply with UN orders to disarm his weapons programs, nuclear, biological, and chemical. The agreement also stipulated that there would be “No fly zones” in the northern and southern portions of Iraq in order to protect the Kurds (north) and the Shiits (in the south). The United States took on the task of patroling these zones with our Air Forces based out of Saudi Arabia. Over the next 12 years (the end of Bush sr’s and the entire Clinton administration) Hussein did everything he could to coverup his ongoing weapons programs while interfering with UN weapons inspectors and preventing them from finding the facts about these programs. On a number of occasions he even threw the inspectors out of the country. President Clinton would launch sporadic attacks on suspected weapons locations in order to force Hussein to allow the UN inspectors back in and continue with their searches. These proved ineffectual however because Hussein had no intention of ever surrendering his weapons programs to the UN demands. The UN then levied economic sanctions on the Hussein regime but that proved disastrous also because it only increased the suffering of the Iraqi people while at the same time allowing Hussein to tighten his grip on power and blame the suffering on the UN and the United States. In 1998 President Clinton made it an official goal of the United States to somehow affect regime change in Iraq and Congress signed on as a show of unity against the Hussein regime. None of this worked and the Iraqi people continued to suffer and die under the boot of Saddam Hussein and his Baathist ruling Party.
The first Iraq war was never resolved. Saddam Hussein delibrately violated the cease fire agreement and all UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions that were established to bring him to heel. Of course he had no fear from these sanctions and resolutions because he knew that there were no teeth in them. If he had been allowed to stay in power with all this going on he would eventually become a major threat to the region and to the world as well. After the terrorist attacks on US soil on 9/11/01, President George Bush Jr. decided that the threat posed by allowing Hussein to stay in power was no longer acceptable and went before the UN to appeal to them to militarily enforce the Security Council resolutions they had enacted. Months of diplomatic and political arguing ensued until finally President Bush was able to pull together enough of a coalition force to invade Iraq and once and for all destroy the Saddam/Baathist regime.
This is a very very simplistic and abridged version of the reasons for our invasion of this beleagered country and my facts may be a little cloudy but I believe it makes a good nutshell history of the Hussein regime’s final years in power. The invasion of Iraq was not an “illegal war” perpetrated by the Bush administration, he just decided that the resolutions imposed by the UN needed to be enforced. And since it was the stated policy of the US put in place by President Clinton to affect regime change in Iraq, and seeing the terrorist attacks launched against the US, President Bush decided that enough was enough. President Bush did not violate international law he enforced it.
Dear “21,”
Asking questions is the beginning of wisdom. May I suggest that, if you have not as yet done so, you begin by reading the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America, all the way through, in that order. These are the two most important foundational documents of our Republic. Remember—we are a constitutional republic (not a democracy). Once you understand the Law of the Land in word and spirit, you will be better equipped to judge events and political questions as an American sees them.
All public servants, from Census workers to presidents, take an oath to uphold the Constitution when they take up their job or office in this country.
It must be frustrating to feel caught in the middle between two extreme political viewpoints, but try to remember that this is the case in more families than you might suspect. The point to remember is that our Bill of Rights is the foundation of our freedoms, the First Amendment being the reason that we are allowed to freely discuss our opinions in public. The value of this is hard to put a price on, but you probably know that men died for it during the American Revolution.
It may be helpful to recognize that there have almost always existed in the U. S., two philosophies regarding foreign policy: 1) isolationist, and 2) interventionist. In its earlier days, America was more isolationist but in recent times it has become more interventionist. Constitutionalists—those who see the Constitution as the final authority—view “globalism” as antithetical to the best interests of the United States because it may abrogate the guarantees of the U. S. Constitution. These are the kinds of important questions you are going to have to consider and decide on for yourself.
Saddam was the only state leader that openly applauded 9/11. He openly supported terrorism, publicly promising financial rewards to the families of terrorists who attacked Israel. Saddam repeatedly bragged about his nuclear mujadeen (islamic warriors). He had already used chemical WMD against the Kurds and Iran. Against Iran was self defense. Against the Kurds was genocide. Saddam had amassed tons of yellow cake uranium, which we this year completed relocating to Canada.
Whether or not he had WMD, you couldn’t really have a war against Terror and not do something about Saddam. That Saddam was publicly bragging that he was working on WMD, combined with his support for terrorism, made him a prime target in the war on terror.
Post 17 says it all.
For me it’s about Leadership.
Bush had the guts to try to weed out Islamic Fundamentalists in the Middle East and damn the polls and Clinton sat on his hands and chose to make you and your family less safe because polls are God to Democrats.
Clinton let them hit us time and again (WTC, embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, USS Cole, on and on) and did nothing. As a result Bin Laden said the US was a paper tiger and would never defend itself. 9/11 was the end result.
There’s the choice. One side takes action to protect you, whether you like it or not, the other does nothing so you won’t speak ill of them.
There isn’t a Democrat alive who could take the abuse that’s been spewed at President Bush since he first took office. There are few Republicans who would abuse their President ( no matter his party affiliation) for trying to eradicate the cancer of Jihad. That’s the difference between the two.
My first thought as well.
America should have attacked Iraq under Clinton. A treaty was signed by Saddam Hussein. He violated the treaty numerous times and we had every legal right to invade.
After 9/11, Hussein gave every indication he had weapons of mass destruction and violated numerous UN resolutions to let weapons inspectors to view suspected sites. Did he have the weapons? President Bush has said no. However, there are reporters who claim yes, citing a "yellow cake" shipment made from Iraq to Canada as evidence. "Yellow cake" is an interim form of a Weapon of Mass Destruction. At least one reporter claims Bush gave the no answer for national security reasons.
At any rate, after Colin Powel took the US case against Hussein to the UN and the UN passed a resolution allowing a legal invasion of Iraq.
Hussein is gone but we are still there. Why may be your next question. We are there because thousands of terrorists have come to Iraq for two reasons: to kill Americans and to build a terrorist state in Iraq from whence they can train. Some military pundants call this the "Fly Paper" Strategy. By drawing the terrorists out to our military, we keep them out of the United States.
Next question.
Did you meant 12/7/1941?
How about 1 vote for each dollar paid in taxes? Just like in corporations....sort of.
I’m not sure that the spelling or punctuation is really indicative of a person’s level of intelligence or education - any middle school student who actually paid attention in English class could write a similar post. I’m not insulting Googul’s intelligence or anything, I’m just pointing out that the vast majority of the younger generation has such poor writing skills simply because they don’t care enough to learn it and if they ever are necessary, all that’s required is to find a broke college student with good grammar and offer them a few dollars (or similar compensation) to proofread their paper.
So, in other words, you want us to do your homework for you. < :P
uh no, 12/11/1941.
OK, I give. What happened on 12/11/1941?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.