Quote:
Originally posted by RocHard
I'm a little bit confused as to why we are questioning our reasons for going into Iraq. After the Gulf war, the terms of surrender were pretty clear. The UN asked us to enforce the terms of this surrender, which we did.
And when we did Iraq fired on our airplanes. That's pretty much a fucking act of war. The first time Iraq fired on our planes we should have carpet bombed Bagdad.
Maybe if the fucking French was patrolling the no fly zone mandated by the UN and the terms of surrender, maybe they would feel differently. Maybe if French jets were getting fired at every other day the French would agree with us.
We did nearly what - eight years of putting up with him violating the terms of the surrender? That's enough of a reason already.
|
Why?
how else can you get weakling into the whitehouse without constantly attacking the guy who's there?
This is what idiots call a strong argument that we had weak intel:
"The absence of proof that chemical and biological weapons and their related development programs had been destroyed was considered proof that they continued to exist,"
