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)
I'm sorry but it's not that easy for me to say "that was a travesty but it's not the issue of today."
Well, excuse me if I'm a bit miffed that we abandoned a people we said we would protect. Especially when they were going to do some of the dirtywork for us and oust Sadaam.
Frankly, that infurates me.
Proof about revenge and oil? I saw current President Bush on TV say: "He (Sadaam) tried to kill my daddy." Saw it with my own eyes.
Yes, I am correct as I have seen and learned up till now. That is why I am very skeptical about our reasons for Gulf 2.
I'm also infuriated that our Government has not, to the best of my knowledge, taken care of our Veterans, not only from the Gulf, but from Vietnam and Korea also.
And I'm less than thrilled that people on this forum who have directed so much venom at me for being a police officer, "falling in line" to crush the Constitution and "go along blindly" with my leaders, refer to me insultingly and go along blindly with the President. And can't come up with anything other than insults.
But hey, that's what makes America great.