very good point......seeing that we have a much closer case of human rights violations ( 90 miles from key west )....this would probably have been cheaper and easier........cmon Hapaboy, we both know thats not the reason we went in.....that was just a by-product.....why does no one talk about the reasons we went to WAR??? WMD period the end everything else is just for the polls.....how can one say it was for the good of the Iraqis when Papa Bush gave them hope once before to only stand by and watch the autrocities being committed.....HOG WASH...if any of you guys belive this i have swamp land in the everglades I want you to look at....
No. But he was taken down because he was a considered a rogue state. Look up the definition of rogue state, then apply it widely. You would be very surprised at who falls under this list. You might want to particularly check nations that routinely violate UN resolutions, and fund dictators that terrorize thier people, and start there. Finally, if the hijackers were Saudi nationals, and Osama is a Saudi national, well, I'll let you speculate on that. Regards Oddi
Noam Chomsky has written several books about this. Most people are not aware of just how controlled news media is.
ahahahaha TriPack & hapaboy, A.K.A. Dumb & dumber yer mean to tell me WE WENT TO WAR FOR ISRAEL now??? better check with your drug dealer, the batch you got was spoiled:eek: from 9-11 (you are the morons who believed saddam did it) to non existent WMD's, to a fraud for imminent threat, and now ISRAEL?:eek: LSD is no good for ya and it shows I go help brother Mavman "move" for a week, can't leave you alone anymore. Yer spewing crap all over the place
Call it what you will but it does not negate the fact that we have indeed given billions in foreign aid. What is your point? How is establishing a democracy in Iraq not a validation of Wilson's ideal? You ramble on giving a history lesson as you see it without saying anything. Apparently you believe the more you write, the more you are correct. Is it now? We remove a brutal dictator from power, establish democracy, and occupy the nation in order to help rebuild it. Shall we only assist industrialized nations? Are you that selfish? And it is precisely because of its oil and proximity to other nations with oil that we must ensure that Iraq never be able to threaten the world economy again. A failure? We prevented the South from being overrun, and quite possibly then Japan. That we did not conquer the North or Red China does not invalidate the importance of our intervention in that crisis. Careful, you're becoming SARCASTIC. Yes, but you didn't state that in your original post. You claimed we are wasting money in Iraq, much of which is used to help Iraqi children, when it could be used on domestic problems. And thank goodness for that. . We barely maintained that position. Under Clinton we reduced our military manpower and equipment to dangerous levels. Bush I may have started the process, but Bill C. certainly more than rolled with the idea. You show your ignorance yet again. A ridiculous claim. Without US leading the way and providing the bulk of the manpower and materiel, Saddam never would have left Kuwait. The British, sad to say, are at the state where they are best at aiding us or taking on third-world class military opponents, i.e. Argentina. Not a realistic proposal at all. Do you really think the Brits would have committed to such a venture without us fighting beside them? How astute of you, but a less than brilliant idea. Had we let the Israelis do it, the ramifications would have been enormous. Syria and the rest of the Jew-hating Arab nations quite possibly would have jumped in, igniting a regional war instead of one restricted to the Iraq-Kuwaiti theater of operations. It would have inflamed the rest of the region and possibly could have led to WWIII. Why do you think Bush I and the other coalition forces tried so hard (and successfully) to persuade Israel to restrain herself? It is his responsibility to do the best he can. He can hardly be expected to solve all our nation's problems that have existed for decades. If it is Bush's fault that Iraq has been freed and the seeds of democracy will be planted there, go ahead and blame him for being successful. The whole pollution issue is extremely debatable. Here in Hawaii, for example, much is being made of cruise ships discharging treated wastewater that is near drinking-water quality several miles from shore, while the EPA allows 82 million gallons of near sewage quality effluent to go into the ocean 2 miles from shore. This has been ongoing through Democrat-led state legislators and while Bill C. was in office. It is not a one-way street. No, throwing money does not always solve problems. We have thrown billions into education and welfare with few tangible results; often the system becomes more bloated and the end product is somehow students with lower test scores and growing ranks of welfare dwellers and their offspring eager to suck at the teat of Uncle Sam. Now THAT is interesting, considering you are more than happy to allow innocent people to be murdered or raped - possibly members of your family - by released felons in ode to your beloved justice system. Rank hypocrisy from you as usual.
Where did I say we went to war for Israel, ya dolt? And I have never said Saddam controlled the 9/11 event. Clearly you are drunk and need to attend the AA events Rogue/Optional loves to quote so much.