Originally posted by: Gaard
Originally posted by: Genesys
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
No, it certainly is not. Old news, it is a drop in the bucket compared to the active support coming from other countries in the region. Further, as we all know, Bush didn't try to sell this war based on that "connection" to terrorism. He sold it on implied ties to 9/11 (and WMDs, of course).Originally posted by: Genesys
is this not good enough of a connection for you?Originally posted by: Bowfinger
And I find those who continue to pretend Iraq had any significant connection to terrorism deluded.
the fact that he gave money to the family of a suicide bomber, with a congratulations is not enough of a connection? now, imagine what that money went towords. bullets to shoot Isrealis with? materials to make bombs for suicide bombers? RPG ammo? God only knows.
and why not? if he supports palestineans blowing themselves up, whose to say he didnt have ties to other terrorist orginizations? how about ties to syria? they support terrorism, no?
and i never once got these implied ties to 9/11 that i hear so many libs blather about. perhaps it was only the simple minded that tried to make that connection? all i heard was how the UN Sec Council passed 1441, then the US got impatient and decided to take matters into its own hands because the US government felt that the UN was taking too long. So the US invaded on the basis of Iraq having WMDs. Do we know if we were right? No. They could be buried in the sand. They could be in Syria. Or, Bush could have been wrong. It doesnt really matter, I still see the war with Iraq as totally justified, and I still see libs as desperate people who are trying their hardest to get a good President out of office because he has good moral character and doesnt reverse his stand on his issues when he knows they are unpopular, no matter how slight the unpopularity.
Wasn't it something like 70% who thought that Saddam had a direct involvement with 9/11? I wonder where 70% of the population got that idea?
perhaps 70% of the general population are sheep, believing anything that is spoon fed to them by the media machines? libs love to accuse people of being sheep, except when the sheep actually agree with them.
Speaking of Syria, if any level of supporting Middle Eastern terrorism justifies full-blown invasion, why aren't you calling for the U.S. to invade Syria too? How about Saudi Arabia and Egypt? They both had direct ties to 9/11. How about Israel? How many innocent people have they killed? With all due respect, my friend, if you believe what you typed above, you are a loon.
How do you know that I dont? Because I dont scream it on an internet message board? I wouldnt mind seeing terrorist supported countries invaded and their terrorist governments overthrown. But hey, im a realist and I know the US military could never invade multiple countries in the same year and occupy it for years afterward. And dont you think youre being a bit extreme by throwing Israel in with terrorist supporting countries? They are defending themselves from constant terrorist attacks. Its not like Sharon tells his guys to go into a Palestinean camp and start shooting people, now is it? No, Israel acts the way it does because it is responding to threats from the outside, not because it seeks to terrorize innocent people.
Read that and tell us Bush did not suggest a link between Iraq and 9/11
he didnt. youre wanting to see one so you can give yourself more ammo to blast Bush with. stop being naiive and wake up to reality. stop letting conspiracy theories run through your head, and take actions at their face value. Youre just like a woman, always trying to read further into a situation than is necessary.
