Would the USA be Safer if they never invaded Iraq?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by version77, Jan 2, 2007.

  1. Can anyone here say the US would be safer for sure?

    Can anyone here say Saddam wouldn't of helped get a Dirty Bomb
    into the US and blow up an American city?

    Perhaps by now NY could of been bombed... or DC... or Boston... or LA...

    Who knows what the US prevented by going to Iraq...

    Ol' HungNeck himself could of had WMD's by now...
  2. Who could possibly say. My opinion is that Bush opened up an unnecessary can of (critical) worms that are going to adversely affect our country for years to come.

    Mind you, this only my fairly informed opinion,

  3. Absolutely we would be safer if we never invaded is my call. We've put together a generation of self - created terrorists over there. Plus we'd have taken the same domestic precautions after 9/11 with or w/o Iraq so don't believe any shit about fighting terists over there so we dont have to fight them here.

    On Afghanistan, I'm not as certain.

    I'd like to have the 1T spent for Iraq spent here also. Recently, a bridge opened connecting an island by me to the mainland. It cost 85M, took 40+ months to build, has two 440' high towers and is 2,200' long. Scratching on back of an envelope, 1T would have built 2 towers on my bridge 487 miles high or it could have a span of 4,875 miles thus connecting the island to Los Angeles and half way back again.
  4. achilles28


    Silly question.

    Saddam didn't have any WMD's or WMD programs.

    His regime refused to work with or harbor Al Queda, or other Islamic radicals.

    Now what we have is a failed state on the verge of collapse - no coherent Government, no security apparatus and no infrastructure.

    Iraq is now a playground for Islamic radicals and terrorists.

    The National Intelligence Estimate confirmed we created more terrorists than existed preinvasion.

    And you're asking if we're safer?

    Like many Americans, you're easily fooled.
  5. If Saddam didn't have any WMD's or programs or even the idea of
    having them, then why were they being inspected so often?

    And if Iraq is to become a terrorist playground then it is obvious
    that the troops need to be increased immediately so this does not
    become permanent.
  6. because they had a program long ago, duh!. that program tho turned to dust in matter of a few yrs. all failed to see iraq didnt have a can of ddt to brag about yet we went there and created the most terror-polluted nation on earth....and u fucking ask if we would be safer if we didnt invade. o-m-f-g.
  7. Like many anti-Americans, you are completely gullible and believe
    everything you read...:p
  8. Bit, it looks like you replied here. I told you that you are on my
    ignore list so I don't have to read your Anti-American BS...
  9. RedDuke



    Why are you labeling a lot of poeple with diffrent view as anti-American? Just becuase someone disagrees with what we do, does not mean they are anti-US.

    As far as Iraq does, it is very simple we are way worse then we were in 2003.

    I still not not understand, the real reason Bush and Cheney had to go there. It can not be oil. We produce ourself some of it, the majority of rest we get from Canada, Mexican Gulf and Venezuella. It could of course be to spike up oil price and spread 500+ billion speding among "friendly" companies, but it is still too weak, IMHO.

  10. It is obvious when an Anti-American is at work here at ET...

    Time to give them the label they deserve.
    #10     Jan 3, 2007