Doombringer50
A little while back, there was a different war in Iraq. In this war, the Iraqi (err... whatever) people rose up in rebellion of the government there at the time. To keep the oil flowing, we sold arms to the rebels to help them win. You know who there leader was? Sadam Hussein (Spelling?). Sadam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. He tortured people and tried to get complete control of everything, crushing all resistance. That's not fun. People didn't like it. So they, as people do, tried to find the cause, and hey: There's the US, selling arms to the tyranical dictator! They must pay! Let's kill them and cripple their economy! And so, we had the twin towers attacks. And the attack on the pentagon. And the one going to the white house. then George Bush, trying to get popular opinion went over to Iraq to calm them down. We didn't need to interfere with their matters. Or did we? Back then, they began the development of chemical weapons. We wanted them stopped, as well as the oil.
((Doombringer- I'm not singling you out by quoting your post, nor am I trying to imply that you're unintelligent or anything. It was just convenient for me to quote you. No hard feelings, I hope!
biggrin ))
When was it that there was rebellion in Iraq before we arrived this time? Are you talking about The Gulf War? THAT was justified, in a way. We were attempting to help Kuwait. (For their oil.) If you're talking about how Saddam came to power, that was more than a little while back.
There is no proof that Saddam had any capability to create WMD's. What he did have, WE gave him back in the 80's. What weapons he did have he disarmed before the deadline, and those could only reach Israel.
The attacks on 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam. GWB used him as a convenient excuse to invade Iraq, and it worked on a very scared public. He used the fear of the people to serve his own ends. (Anyone remember GW saying he was not interested in regime change in Iraq? What the hell is this, tiddlywinks?)
People, understand that we were attacked by binLaden and his merry men, okay? Not Saddam. And there was no link between them. Furthermore, this is all due to Mulism fanatasism. (Of course, it didn't help that we built bases on Muslin holy lands....)
I'm not saying Saddam shouldn't have been deposed. He's a sociopath and a maniac. But, blaming him for 9/11 is uniformed in light of all the information that has come out recently.
Reply
