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.
By that logic PGH if Al Queda had camps in the UK would should invade them too!
Very possibly. If you are just going to push them from Afgahnistan into another country, have you really accomplished anything? This would be like pushing Hitler out of France and then going.. Ok Hitler, you are fine now...
If you are at war with someone, you take care of the problem in full, you dont just allow them to move and re-establish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
I dont have the time now to dig but I recall Bush officials and Generals stating with facts that Al Queda was not in Iraq and Bush pushed from Day 1 to make a connection between the two to justify the war.
Bush made the case that Iraq had WMDs as justification, which turned out to be "partially true".. (he did have them, they were just not usable).. Al Queda was in Iraq, they just operated without Saddams support..
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2flyy
I dont know where to begin if you find nothing wrong with the Iraq war invasion (I halfway would understand if this was 7 years ago) but now after the casualties, the botched intelligence, false pretenses (WMDs), the cost and all basically for NOTHING
How could you possible defend the Iraq War after what we know now?
While the excuses to invade might have been off, this doesnt mean that you go in and simply push terrorists from Afghanistan and allow them to move to other countries that will be willing to harbor them.
Because the current justification for Iraq, is no different than the current justification for Afghanistan, and things like the number of casualties mean nothing. Its a war, there are casulties during war, and yes, sometimes people die in order to maintain our freedom and safety. What would the casulties be if we dont take out terrorists and allow them to attack again, maybe next time it'll be a nuclear bomb in the middle of NYC..
Very possibly. If you are just going to push them from Afgahnistan into another country, have you really accomplished anything? This would be like pushing Hitler out of France and then going.. Ok Hitler, you are fine now...
If you are at war with someone, you take care of the problem in full, you dont just allow them to move and re-establish.
Bush made the case that Iraq had WMDs as justification, which turned out to be "partially true".. (he did have them, they were just not usable).. Al Queda was in Iraq, they just operated without Saddams support..
While the excuses to invade might have been off, this doesnt mean that you go in and simply push terrorists from Afghanistan and allow them to move to other countries that will be willing to harbor them.
Because the current justification for Iraq, is no different than the current justification for Afghanistan, and things like the number of casualties mean nothing. Its a war, there are casulties during war, and yes, sometimes people die in order to maintain our freedom and safety. What would the casulties be if we dont take out terrorists and allow them to attack again, maybe next time it'll be a nuclear bomb in the middle of NYC..
If Al Qaeda was in Iraq, then Bush should have addressed the problem with Sadaam Hussein. Not going after Sadaam Hussein himself, but stating that the U.S. was there strictly to eliminate Al Qaeda, and nothing else. If Sadaam Hussein then rejected it, then Hussein could have been accused of harboring "terrorists", and the rest of the world would have joined in.
Do you suggest Bush should have invited Saddam over for tea?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RD5050
But I highly doubt that Al Qaeda existed in Iraq before we attacked.
So your arguing something that you dont have a clue about? Have you even read the reports like the 911 Commission Report?
Very possibly. If you are just going to push them from Afgahnistan into another country, have you really accomplished anything? This would be like pushing Hitler out of France and then going.. Ok Hitler, you are fine now...
If you are at war with someone, you take care of the problem in full, you dont just allow them to move and re-establish.
Bush made the case that Iraq had WMDs as justification, which turned out to be "partially true".. (he did have them, they were just not usable).. Al Queda was in Iraq, they just operated without Saddams support..
While the excuses to invade might have been off, this doesnt mean that you go in and simply push terrorists from Afghanistan and allow them to move to other countries that will be willing to harbor them.
Because the current justification for Iraq, is no different than the current justification for Afghanistan, and things like the number of casualties mean nothing. Its a war, there are casulties during war, and yes, sometimes people die in order to maintain our freedom and safety. What would the casulties be if we dont take out terrorists and allow them to attack again, maybe next time it'll be a nuclear bomb in the middle of NYC..
I see what you mean we would have to go chase them into pakistan and take them out where ever they are
Because the current justification for Iraq, is no different than the current justification for Afghanistan, and things like the number of casualties mean nothing.
I must have misread this. No sane human could seriously intend this to be interpreted the way is it written.
No, WE are not talking about Bushs first 8 months, we are talking about the Obama Afghanistan speech tonight...
Maybe you should trace back on this thread before replying to a post that was meant for someone else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
And now that you admit Bush needed to focus 100% against Al Qaeda, you now agree that Bush was right for taking out Al Qaeda in Iraq, after all 100% is TOTAL focus..
Admit that Bush needed to focus 100% against Al Qaeda?
Where have I ever denied it?
And as far as Iraq is concerned, read my previous reply to you.
I must have misread this. No sane human could seriously intend this to be interpreted the way is it written.
Its meant exactly how it is being interpreted. The only other option was that you think we shouldnt have gotten involved in WWII, because we lost 416,800 individuals...
If you dont think casulties are acceptable, then answer me a question,
At what point are casulties higher than the benefits of our safety and freedoms? You do understand thats the only alternative right? You either take out the enemy and accept the casulties, or you go back and continue life and pretend the terrorists dont exist, and pray they dont attack again.
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.
