Total Members Voted: 58
I'm sorry...did I miss a fact that can't be verified? Were we not attacked on Sept. 11th? Are we not fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?
The fighting in Iraq is based on Saddaam NOT cooperating with the sanctions put in place by the UN back in the early 90's. He was given ample opportunity to prove that he was not a threat and did not have WMDs, but he let his big head get in the way and refused to do so. With the US just recently being attacked, George Bush took the initiative that Bill Clinton didn't have the balls to and PREVENTED Saddaam from attacking us or anyone else. Keep in mind, this man wiped out 300,000 people with WMD. What was stopping him from doin the same to us? George Bush..that's who. If you'll remember, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madaam "Notsobright" and there entire crew all agreed that Saddaam was a threat to our nation's security, had and was trying to get more WMDs and must be removed from power. Did any of those liberals actually DO anything about it? NO. Why? Because as always, a democraps bark is worse than it's bite.
I wasn't being sarcastic.I linked an attack on America to Aghanistan and Iraq because Iraq posed an imminent threat. I would be willing to bet that if it came out that we knew that the Afghan's were planning an attack on America and we didn't go over there and stop them, that people would be in an uproar. It's the same thing in Iraq. The "war" in Iraq is preventative measure. I put war in quotes because congress has yet to actually declare it a war..and that's a whole different thread.
If they pose an imminent threat..yes. Pakistan does not. Syria. nope. Iran..not likely since they stopped their production of WMDs (thanks to the war in Iraq). North Korea...yeah..I would say that they need to be dealt with in the same manner that Iraq was dealt with. Granted, I thinkt that we have learned a lot from Iraq in how to deal with how to oust a dictator that threatens to destroy us..but Kim Jong should be dealt with.