I never viewed Iraq as a threat. Sure, Saddam Hussein was a repressive dictatorship, but so are many of the governments the U.S. supports. Saudi Arabia is the first that comes to mind. The front for the war on terror should have been staged in Afghanistan, not Iraq. If we would've devoted the resources and soldiers to that nation that we did to Iraq and not 'outsourced' the finding of Bin Laden to warlords who's alliances change on a daily basis and/or relied on information the Pakistani Intelligence Service; who's more than likely aiding him, we would have probably killed him by now. Furthermore, we would be more tactically positioned to strike at Iran; who's more of a threat than Iraq ever thought of being.
Vietnam was not a civil war. That is one of the myths put out by the press, historians and liberals. South Vietnam was invaded by North Vietnam. Most historians call it a civil war because of the Viet Cong who were reported to be South Vietnamese, but in point of truth the Viet Cong came from North Vietnam a few years before. They were a fifth column. Also, all the weapons and ammo came from various communist nations such as China, Russia and Soviet satallite nations. Doesn't sound like a civil war to me.
No I just meant there was never a formal declaration of war. My grandfather fought there. I know it was a war.
Come on, Vietnam was a single country for centuries. When the French colonial government left in the 1950's a civil war was fought resulting in a socialist North and a capitalist South that both claimed each other. We entered into the ongoing civil war to unite the two halves that had been going on for 10 years already. It meets all definitions of a civil war, as does Iraq. At least we picked a side in that civil war. In Iraq we are on both sides somehow even though both sides are killing our troops. Amazing.
"There's a difference between vehement disagreement and insults." Taking out Saddam had much more to do with Israeli security that US security. But if you believe that Saddam didn't have his hand on a significant amount of terrorist activities involving US interests, you need to do some thorough research. The basic mindset of the liberal media denys that the, "War on Terror," plan of February 2003, included the targeting of all nations and organizations who sponsored terrorism towards any country or any group, and not just those who specifically targeted the US. It makes me want to slap the crap out of anyone who uses the false policy that the media devised to justify their stance. In essence, Bush has been held to a standard that has nothing to do with actual US foreign policy.
No, you need to point them out for us or we will give this statement no credence. But that is not the reason we were given for going to war with Iraq. What are you talking about? I have no idea what you mean.
"I made up my mind that Saddam needs to go. " -- George W. Bush, April 5, 2002 "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Cheney, August 26, 2002 “Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year,” George W. Bush, September 12, 2002 "Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." -- George W. Bush, September 12, 2002 "Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace, and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat. The threat comes from Iraq. America must not ignore the threat gathering against us" --George W. Bush, October 7, 2002 "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Dick Cheney, March 16, 2003 "We know where the WMDs are." -- Donald Rumsfeld, March 30, 2003 "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction [as the justification for invading Iraq] because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." -- Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003
