|
Shawdow 248.
You dont atack a country uless that country poses a threat of iminate danager. Iraq may of "had" weapons of mass destruction that we gave them in the early 90s. That has a self life of less than 10 years. Last time i checked it was innocent untill proven guilty not the other way around, and you need concuisve evidence to that Iraq had weapons on mass destrution to attack them based off of that, or the links to alkida, which they did not becasue they dident exist. Bushes administartion has even addmited this. By your logic since the U.S. is close to the drug lords we must be giving them help why wouldent we.
I do stand behind our troops i stand behind that Iraq should not of been attacked and i dont support putting our troop in harms way OVER A LIE.
"Because of bush, one of the richest al-queda supporters in the world is now no longer an issue, the al-queda network is now on the defensive and has been completely unable to mount any attaks on our soil, and finally, our country has actually stood up for something even when it meant alot of risk to ourselves. That's something that we haven't done in a long time." By shawdow 248
Sicnce bush has attacked Iraq funding for terrorism has gone up with more people vounterring to do it.
|