Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That doesn't change the fact that for the last 4 years Al Qaeda has been a main focus of our military efforts.
Let me try to make this simple for you.
Let’s say that the city of Houston has been flooded by a hurricane storm surge (God forbid) and the President sends in a bunch of troops to help them. Then let’s say that while Houston is still flooded the President sends most of those troops to New Orleans and tells them blow up a levee there. New Orleans is now flooded and the troops start fighting back the waters there. Then the President claims that we are fighting the cause of the flood in Houston because waters from the Gulf are now in New Orleans and we are fighting them there.
Would we really be fighting the cause of the flood in Houston?
Disclaimer: this is a fictional story that is being used to make a point.
No I'm not - I'm saying that you can't cause a problem and then take credit for solving that problem without admitting that you caused it. If we wouldn't have invaded, Al Qaeda never would have been there. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq had nothing, zero, zip, nada to do with 9/11.
"Before America came into Iraq we didn't have Al Qaeda in Iraq" -Mahmoud Othman, a member of the Iraqi Parliament
And if al-qaeda hadn't come to the US we wouldn't be in Afghanistan.
Fact remains, the use of force in Iraq wasn't because of 9/11 and I haven't seen any quote by Palin stating anything remotely to this affect. To make this claim without fact is the definition of a smear. . . and you are making it.
And if al-qaeda hadn't come to the US we wouldn't be in Afghanistan.
Fact remains, the use of force in Iraq wasn't because of 9/11 and I haven't seen any quote by Palin stating anything remotely to this affect. To make this claim without fact is the definition of a smear. . . and you are making it.
Huh? Then what exactly did she mean:
Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."
Who are "the innocent"?
Who in Iraq are "the enemies"?
Who "planned and carried out"? Carried out what?
Who in Iraq "rejoiced in the deaths of thousands of Americans"?
Dude, if she's not talking about 9/11, then I don't know what she's talking about.
Let’s say that the city of Houston has been flooded by a hurricane storm surge (God forbid) and the President sends in a bunch of troops to help them. Then let’s say that while Houston is still flooded the President sends most of those troops to New Orleans and tells them blow up a levee there. New Orleans is now flooded and the troops start fighting back the waters there. Then the President claims that we are fighting the cause of the flood in Houston because waters from the Gulf are now in New Orleans and we are fighting them there.
Would we really be fighting the cause of the flood in Houston?
Disclaimer: this is a fictional story that is being used to make a point.
Lets say a large chunk of ice breaks off Greenland forming an ice berg and starts floating towards Iceland. The people in Iceland get concerned because its a really big ice berg and it is headed for their main ports and will probably cause a lot of damage and people may be hurt or killed trying to protect their ports. The people of Iceland try to come up with a strategy to stop the iceberg from causing damage.
They would be fighting the iceberg in Iceland, even though it came from Greenland. Either way, the iceberg is still the problem, and the protection of innoncent people who might be harmed is important.
Okay, any other change the story games you want to play?
Lets say a large chunk of ice breaks off Greenland forming an ice berg and starts floating towards Iceland. The people in Iceland get concerned because its a really big ice berg and it is headed for their main ports and will probably cause a lot of damage and people may be hurt or killed trying to protect their ports. The people of Iceland try to come up with a strategy to stop the iceberg from causing damage.
They would be fighting the iceberg in Iceland, even though it came from Greenland. Either way, the iceberg is still the problem, and the protection of innoncent people who might be harmed is important.
Okay, any other change the story games you want to play?
With your analogy we would only be fighting Al Qaeda in America. I think going into Afganistan where the real planners of 9/11 were was the correct course of action. I'm sorry you don't.
With your analogy we would only be fighting Al Qaeda in America. I think going into Afganistan where the real planners of 9/11 were was the correct course of action. I'm sorry you don't.
Your vertical leap must be off the charts! Very impressive jumping to conclusions there!
Between tap dancing, and jumping to conclusions, I bet you are in pretty good shape!
You couldn't answer a simple question though, so I'm not sure why I even thought there was any possibility of you following an analogy. But this is your game, change it all up and try to make everyone forget what you were wrong about.
"Al Qaeda in Iraq" is an organization that has existed in Iraq for some time under a different name. They changed the name and declared allegiance to the larger Al Qaeda organization as a response to the involvement of the US in Iraq.
Bin Laden isn't in Iraq. This is all misdirection.
Lets say a large chunk of ice breaks off Greenland forming an ice berg and starts floating towards Iceland. The people in Iceland get concerned because its a really big ice berg and it is headed for their main ports and will probably cause a lot of damage and people may be hurt or killed trying to protect their ports. The people of Iceland try to come up with a strategy to stop the iceberg from causing damage.
They would be fighting the iceberg in Iceland, even though it came from Greenland. Either way, the iceberg is still the problem, and the protection of innoncent people who might be harmed is important.
Okay, any other change the story games you want to play?
So explain your analogy? In regards to the Bush Doctrine?
I assume the ice berg is "Islamic Extremists", but then why would Iceland just fight the ice berg in their own country? Why not go after Greenland for letting it get away? And why attack Norway? To open up lucrative ice cube contracts?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
