We fought for Iraq, and continue today -- as we do for Afghanistan.
What we did was remove a “known†terrorist who had international reach, and who had at least potential, possibly direct access to WMD. A terrorist who remained at bay merely because the U.S. was already spending billions annually to keep him at bay.
In effect, and as "predicted", Iraq is freer today, thanks to the efforts of the Coalition Forces, not conquered -- any more than Poland, Italy, France, Hungary, Japan, et al, were conquered by the Allied Powers and NATO through WWII and the fall of The Wall in the late 80s.
But those are just a bunch of other arguments for you to pick at,
Dan
Current Events » in reply to In "it will decrease terrorism", the IT stood for conquering Iraq
re: Splitting hairs, we did not 'conquer' Iraq . . .
The whole thread (31 posts)
- Bush really is a moron
- "I can't believe I'm loosing to this idiot"
- You really miss those heady exciting days of appeasement and jutting jaw and strong talk?
- Bush really is a moron
- re: Yes, he is a moron . . .
- but are you attracting flies or also breeding more flies n/t (n/t)
- re: You have a problem with that . . . ?
- There are a lot of flies in the Middle East
- So when we were debating 6 months ago...
- Termites
- Frank, with a straight face, sees no inconsistency (n/t)
- Termites
- So when we were debating 6 months ago...
- but are you attracting flies or also breeding more flies n/t (n/t)
- re: Bush
