By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Kasz216 on 29 February 2008
Edit Thread
madskillz said:
halogamer1989 said:
I just have one thing to say to Dems who want immediate withdraw: they say that Iraq wasn't needed b/c the terror was in Afghanistan. Granted the Taliban was in control of Kabul and al-Qaeda using that nation as a base. However, when Saddam gassed his own Kurdish minority with sarin and anthrax WMDs, (WMD is not defined as solely nuclear), they wanted the US should stand still. Now the US was stupid in giving him those to fight Iran in the 80's. My point is they say that Iraq wasn't part of the War on Terror. Well unless the definition has changed, gassing your own citizens damn sure sounds like terror to me.

Bin Laden was never in Iraq, and al-Qaida was never in Iraq before the invasion. Bush had his eye on Saddam since he threatened his daddy back in the day. He needed a reason - a motivation to invade. So, we looked to the CIA and other sources for links to Iraq and 9/11. Nada. So, Bush said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and linked Iraq to the terrorists who did the attack, even though none of the hijackers were from Iraq.

Bush had his eye on one thing - making his buddies money. Read this sometime ... it's very, very eye opening.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle

This is the best way to sum up why we need to leave Iraq. We should leave as soon as the U.N. steps in to help. We should also provide some troops and plenty of financial support.

We need to continue the fight in Afghanistan/Pakistan to get al-Qaida. I'd support using more troops in Afghanistan with faster deployments and returns back to the U.S.

 


Why would the UN agree to step in?

What do they benifit by it? 

Also... maybe it's just me... but just about every mission involving UN troops seems to be like 80% US troops anyway.