posted
One of the major reasons for our invading Iraq was "our War on Terrorism".
This was scoffed at by many people because, well, Iraq had very little to do with AlQueda and Al-Queda was very upset that a secular leader like Hussein would be in charge of a major Islamic area like Iraq.
However, thanks to new turns of events, it appears that Iraq has become the center for our "War on Terrorism".
We set out 100,000 + Volunteers to be human targets for all islamic terrorists in the world, and according to the Bush government, many are rushing in to Iraq to take them out.
While this is less than good news for our soldiers in Iraq, and not terribly good news for the Iraqi people, it is great news for the rest of us.
AlQueda is dropping its plans to hit hard targets in the US for easier ones like the UN headquarters in Iraq. No new 9/11's in the foreseeable future. Sure, there will be some military deaths, but not massive civilian ones. Atleast, not massive American civilian ones.
Besides, with a little smooth talking from our state department, and we will begin replacing our American Cheese bait with some UN mixed bag of bait.
Who knows, maybe when we draw enough of the terrorists into Iraq, we will have the military strength to crush them all. This could be an ingenius trap.
posted
It is grasping at straws by a drowning group of political cronies. A last stab a respectability, or at least that's the way it's looking to me.
I believed we needed to do something drastic in Afghanistan. I believed we did need to overturn the Saddam regime in Iraq.
But I believed, and still do, that we had to have a real plan in Afghanistan and a real commitment. And we needed to have REAL proof in Iraq.
We've just about bailed on Afghanistan and I'm just not thinking there's ever going to be proof in Iraq. And boy, don't we have the taste of crow in our mouths when we have to go begging to the UN? Should have done it properly in the first case...
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This was scoffed at by many people because, well, Iraq had very little to do with AlQueda and Al-Queda was very upset that a secular leader like Hussein would be in charge of a major Islamic area like Iraq.
On 9/11 or 9/12, Cheney was being interviewed by one of the networks, and the interviewer asked him if Saddam was involved in 9/11.
Cheney replied that there was zero evidence that Saddam was involved. I thought to myself, that it was great that the vice-president would make such an unequivocal statement, given the fact that it would be convenient to use this incident as an excuse to get Saddam.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
