Replies

Truth be told, I was against the first Gulf War. And after we did go to war, we had the "murderer" in our hands and let him go.

And not only did he go, he went and murdered people we told we would protect and support. Meaning the Kurds.

Is that right about the Kurds? I have yet to read anything on my own or have anyone show me that we did not abandon them.

And if it's true that we abandon the Kurds, after we told them we'd protect them, then shame on us.

Also, while we're having a discussion, what about all the veterans of the Gulf War who are trying to draw attention to the government on the medical problems they are having since the war? There have been a few posts on FR about this and I didn't hear anybody calling them 'sorry peaceniks' etc.

You completely ignored my point that your "we let him go once" excuse is nonsensical.

And yes, we did abandon the Kurds and it was wrong.

But that has nothing to with the current situation. We also didn't treat the Indians very nice, but that has nothing to do with the price of tea.

And, how 'bout them Kurds?

That was a travesty, but is not the issue of today.

I don’t think this ouster of Sadaam is for oil so much as it is for revenge for the attack on George I.

Proof please!

If we would have taken Sadaam our the first time, there would have been no attempt on the President.

You are correct, but again, that is not the issue for January 15, 2003.

The difference between 1991 and 2003 is that there are l3,000 dead at the WTC and the Pentagon. Iraq is a state sponsor of terror directed at the West. I believe there is a link between Iraq and Al Queda – the least being the meeting in Prague between Muhammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence. That is what this war is about.! About stopping terrorism in its track, before a madman can arm terrorists to do more harm in the US, Israel, and the West.

Now, we can debate this issue until the cows come home because this is the issue. (IMO)