As I said in the beginning, its just odd how you stand by certain facts and not others. You can make a good case that way.
"Did he have any conncections to people who would attack Americans on US soil?"did he have the ability to attack the US?"
I never said he did. We went in 91 because he was attacking his neighbor. (You read: for oil) He should have obeyed the UN sanctions from that time after. Shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone years after... we should have attacked then.
I am not happy for the deaths either. It is quite sad, but also necessary in my point of view. The same would happen if we assisted Rowanda... should we do nothing, because there will be casualties? Or is Genocide better?
Quote:
Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
BTW, I see that you are another product of the apologist right wing media, Fox, the same people who bring us the Trading Spouses show.
Is Iraq better today? No, will it be in 10 years, most likely. Is that worth the lives of the 1300 plus dead soldiers and over 10,000 wounded? You'll have ask their families."
|
Last and not least, I am not a product of Fox. Although Married with Children was a hell of a show!
I am a very proud second generation of the US Air Force. My opinions have been formed by strictly... me
and my experiences since in the service. I was around in 91 and sat through the daily frustrations of having our planes targeted for years afterwards; and US lives constantly threatened.
Your statement was "Is that worth the lives of the 1300 plus dead soldiers and over 10,000 wounded? You'll have ask their families."
I'll give you one better. Ask my wife. She knows better than anyone why a soldier lays thier life on the line every day. You take your freedom for granted... go ahead, deny it, but its true.
Sometime in history, MANY soldiers have died and been wounded for YOUR freedom YOU now have... and toss around so freely. Everyone deserves it as much as you.
I personally would fight anywhere, for anyone, who is denied freedom. Iraq is just one of the many.
