So rather than 1000 miles, you would rather him move troops halfway across the world?? Who care whether or not he was behind 9-11? The war on terror wasn't strictly against Bin Laden, It was against terrorists. I think Hussein easily falls into that category.Originally Posted by ironchef
Why Not? IT happened to Israel. Luckily Someone seems to be watching over themDo you honestly think Saddam could've had planned something and gotten 7 palestinian nations in cohorts without the U.S. knowing about it? Come on now. As far as Bush taking action, I have no beef with that, my beef is the fact that he could have handled the situation a lot better than he did.![]()
And no sh*t he could have done it better, all I can safely say is, that he has and will continue to do a better job than Gore or Kerry (who could have been in office when the planes hit)
Ok, and he was busy from 2001 until the invasion having to answer the call of duty after a major attack on our country. Sorry he didnt attack Hussein before 9-11. Chances are, all of you that did nothing but talk down about him after his election took a little time. Not to mention him having to answer all your bitching and moaning after the attacks about what he was gonna do....How do you not see relevence? One of Bushes major reasons for invading Iraq was because they had WMDs. Well they've had WMDs since before the Gulf War, what was the point of waiting till 2002-2003 to take them out?
Ok, and the person that the country elected and pays, says that you are wrong.I've also had friends go over there, and they all came back with negative views on the subject. Eventually the point comes down to this, this shouldn't still be going on, it should've been over by now, but its not its just costing more lives and money.
He does get paid to make these decisions. And considering that you werent old enough to vote against or for him, it kind of doesnt give you the right to ***** about the way he does his job




)
Reply With Quote