Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The Old Hoosier
As I said earlier in this thread, we'd be a lot safer if we hadn't invaded Iraq but instead spent the $300 billion on protecting our borders.

And that's where everyone else is disagreeing with you. 9/11 happened here. We're fighting Al Qeada now over there. Not here. Better.

Saddam's continued presence was exposing our flank to an attack that would have serious consequences in supporting and continuing the war against Al Qeada. We minimized that risk while turning it into the playing field of our efforts against them.

We started WWII with the Japanese attacking us. The Germans didn't, but we ended up fighting them both. Their respective political philosophies were totally different, yet they put them aside to ally themselves. We didn't give Saddam that chance. I say good.

101 posted on 06/16/2005 10:25:43 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies ]


To: Alas Babylon!
Imagine Afghanistan without taking out Saddam and Sons.

Saddam would be warring against us in Afghanistan, just as he openly did with Israel all those many years of funding/hiding/sending Islamic cults into kill innocent Jews.

No way Bush could fight the in Afghanistan and the WOT with Saddam and Sons over his shoulder, no way.We would have been surrounded.
111 posted on 06/16/2005 1:06:37 PM PDT by roses of sharon (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson