Originally posted by Tony Love:
In response to an earlier post about me going to "Geography 101". It's very ironic something that this would be said about the topic at hand: Iraq. I love this country, and I (along with many fellow Americans) wanted vengeance for 9/11. I wanted us to attack the sonofabitches who killed so many innocent people. Bush was doing fine at first, went straight into Afghanistan, the source of our problem. After all, Osama Bin Laden admitted he would attack the United States. Next thing I know, he turns his focus to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. That was a whole different issue, totally irrelevant to 9/11. I believe we should take care of our vendetta for 9/11 first.
It's like I've said a gazillion times: No one was enforcing the "mighty UN's" resolutions about nuclear arms. It doesn't matter if not so much as a firecracker would've been found over there. The problem was that Hussein wasn't letting anyone take a look. Now, if we're going to give power to the
"mighty UN," what good is it if no one enforces the rules that are made? Granted, Bush should've focused on that aspect of the war rather than the WMDs (which Saddaam had 12 years to hide anyway), and then the critics couldn't have said anything. They damn him for cooperating with the UN and they damn him when he doesn't. The man can't win with y'all.
Iraq "totally irrelevant" to 9-11 and terrorists? So, those aren't the same types of terrorists bombing our boys over there? Well, what are they, then? Apaches?? :rolleyes:
