Quote:
Originally posted by Centurion
You have two LARGE leaps of logic in your arguments:
1)The first one is that (and boy how it changes from disarming Iraq to Liberating the Iraqi people, now back to "Disarming Iraq) you make it sound like an OPEN AND SHUT case that Iraq was either involved directly with the 9/11 attacks or funding such terrorist attacks. It is your speculation..not fact. There is STILL no strong evidence of a connection between Sadam and the militant muslims who attacked/are planning to attack the U.S.
|
I do not believe that Saddam/Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. He made himself a target (a thorn in our side for 12 years) and as I stated Iraq is strategically located for us to confront other known enemy nations in that part of the world, ie Iran to one side and Syria to the other and whoever else chooses to become one, or cannot control their people.
Quote:
|
2)We showed the Muslim nations that we will kick their butts if they do anything we don't like by sending in troops and occupying their lands? YOU CAN'T BE SERIOUS! (in my best John McEnroe voice). Where the fuck are we going to come up with that manpower, weaponry, and most of all MONEY to accomplish such a hurculean task? It is a fool's dream to think the United States can shut down one muslim nation after another. And even if we could, it's been done before..and it's called Colonialism!
|
We put sixteen million people in uniform, with less than half the current population, during the Second World War. We fought that war with a fraction of the current GNP and that was a "hurculean task", but we did it.
I doubt that we will have to shut down one Muslim nation after another. The leaders of the nations will get the message and begin to police/control their people.
By the way it is not called "Colonialism" it is called defense.