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.
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
It's called the Obama syndrome. Symptoms of which are finding yourself against everything he is for.
My problem with this whole middle east mess, is that we aren't at war with them, because they hate our freedom. No, we're at war with them, because we're on their soil, dictating to them how they are going to be conducting business with us. I also know, that every dollar you have in your pocket, right now, has some blood that was spilt for it to end up there in your pocket. Maybe, you yourself didn't spill the blood, personally, but somebody did.
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
I had absolutely no problem with invading Iraq, and still do not. Public Law 107-40 in effect declared war against every nation that sponsored, trained, financed, or provided safe harbor to international terrorist organizations. At the time war against terrorism was declared, there were four nations that actively sponsored international terrorism - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
I was not going to quibble about the order in which they were taken out, as long as all four were taken out. Bush 43 only completed half the job, the other half (Iran and Syria) remains incomplete.
I had absolutely no problem with invading Iraq, and still do not. Public Law 107-40 in effect declared war against every nation that sponsored, trained, financed, or provided safe harbor to international terrorist organizations. At the time war against terrorism was declared, there were four nations that actively sponsored international terrorism - Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria.
I was not going to quibble about the order in which they were taken out, as long as all four were taken out. Bush 43 only completed half the job, the other half (Iran and Syria) remains incomplete.
Do you think it's because "they" hate our freedom?
Do you think it's because "they" hate our freedom?
I do not really care. Afghanistan and Iraq were, and in the case of Iran and Syria, still are, supporting terrorist organizations that killed Americans. That alone is sufficient grounds to invade and overthrow their government.
...but never really seemed all that interested in actually going after al Qaeda.
After 9.11 everybody was calling for the head of al Qaeda, and rightfully so, but then something strange happened, getting al Qaeda gave way to getting Saddam 24/7. And while I was definitely not a fan of the late Mr. Hussein I found myself in incessant arguments with conservatives asking... "but, but what about Afghanistan. You know over there the place where al Qaeda trained and operated" But my questions were always answered by a stream of invective about Iraq, in general and Saddam Hussein in particular. "We have to fight then there so we don't have to fight them overhere.. "or something like that.
Today, you never here read a thread about going after al-Qaeda, in fact the conversation always seems to going the other way - I exclude many "left, left wing liberals" because they never seemed interested in either al Qaeda or Hussein - why are we sending troops here, why are we sending troops there. Why are we using this tactic, blase, blase, blase...
So what happened in 2008, or 2003, that folks loose interest in actually going after the folks who actually had something to do with 9.11?
The invasion of Iraq didn't really have anything to do directly with al Qaeda. It was mainly about protecting American oil interests there.
I do not really care. Afghanistan and Iraq were, and in the case of Iran and Syria, still are, supporting terrorist organizations that killed Americans. That alone is sufficient grounds to invade and overthrow their government.
So, it doesn't matter "why" to you? Got it
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.
