I invaded no one! My peace was invaded on Sept 11, 2001. We just took the war to them. It was not their country anyway. It was the dictator Sadam Hussiens country, he was the owner, ruler, despot, and people lived and died on his whim. Did we forget that?datan said:let's see...you go and invade another country, then you act so surprised when the natives do nasty things to your people.
Who is them? There is no strong evidence to support that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Too many on this forum are doing this. They mention 9-11 and think that makes their case stonger.crystalpc said:I invaded no one! My peace was invaded on Sept 11, 2001. We just took the war to them. It was not their country anyway. It was the dictator Sadam Hussiens country, he was the owner, ruler, despot, and people lived and died on his whim. Did we forget that?
I thought you Knew that Iraq was in the middle east! That is the them.kermit said:Who is them? There is no strong evidence to support that Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Too many on this forum are doing this. They mention 9-11 and think that makes their case stonger.
Yes, I remember 9-11 very well. I'm just still waiting for the Iraqi/9-11 connection. As far as I'm concerned Iraq is a distraction from the War on Terror.
So why Iraq? We knew for certain that Saudi Arabia supports terrorists including Al Qeada. Why didn't we invade them? Or any other number of middle eastern countries that we know supports terrorist and/or has WMD's? Instead we start with one that may have supported terrorists and may not have disposed of its WMD's. To me that doesn't make sense. The only way that it does if some other motive was behind the invation.crystalpc said:I thought you Knew that Iraq was in the middle east! That is the them.
datan said:your planes were invading his sovereignty; he had every right to shoot at them.
and I don't suppose you could point to the specific resolution?Blindfaith said:Saddam DID NOT have any right to shoot at planes. There was a UN resolution...but WAIT! That really means nothing actually, it's just ink on a piece of paper, so that must be right.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here.jameseb said:Now before you raised a ruckus over something I said because you felt insulted by it as an 'American'.... now you refer to them as "your planes." Which is it or am I just totally confused again?
not necessarily.But sticking to the issue here, he had every 'right' to shoot at our airplanes.... and he had every right to accept the fact that would come back to bite him in the butt one day. Agreed?
datan said:I don't understand what you're trying to say here.
I never claimed to be an American.
not necessarily.
the planes had no right to be there.
he had every right to take defensive action against those planes.
which doesn't give the US the right to invade.
BigToe said:funny how we are so quick to hold others accountable to the UN resolutions we make against them, but we wont even sign agreements so we won't be held accountable. I think the US needs to mature and learn that its either comply with the UN on it all or nothing- but not pick and choose which things we will let others do and wont, while we can do them all
Blindfaith said:Wow. I'm simply amazed at some of these posts here. I guess Saddam was a good guy and deserved an ice-cream cone **rolleyes**.
Saddam DID NOT have any right to shoot at planes. There was a UN resolution...but WAIT! That really means nothing actually, it's just ink on a piece of paper, so that must be right. He could shoot. He could also MURDER a million or so people, but hey! That's okay - he's got every right. Right? It's his sovereign country.
Because it was his "sovereign country", he could put people through a SHREDDER, head or feet first. No biggie.....I'm sure it didn't hurt.
His psycopathic sons could RAPE, ABUSE AND MURDER women in their torture chambers, but hey! That's okay. It was his sovereign nation.
Yep, let's give it back to Saddam. He's the leader of a "sovereign" country. **hurl**