BonoVoxSupastar said:Welcome back, it's been awhile.
I'm an official working woman now, haven't had much spare time to delve into the hot and heavy debates - I can handle an easy question like this though
BonoVoxSupastar said:Welcome back, it's been awhile.
Zoocoustic said:Huge Bush supporter here.
tackleberry said:My Question is: How does all of this make the United States of America more "secure"?
We know that Saddam had no ties to al-qaida, so it was unlikely that he would have sold his "so called" WMD's to Terrorists, but whose to say that the new leaders of Iraq won't sell them to "thugs"?? These new guys hate America just as much as Saddam does. And they have more incentive to inflict terror on us.
Isn't that the reason we went to war? For our national Security? How is that gonna change, when we might have created a civil war in Iraq, and bred more individuals who hate the US?
Oh and I will definitely not be voting for Bush. Bush had a chance to do something really important, and bold after 9/11, instead he took the wrong course and destroyed the World's view of America. I just cannot understand his motivations. I cannot fathom them.
tackleberry said:
We know that Saddam had no ties to al-qaida
Clark W. Griswold said:
I feel his greatest short coming in the whole Iraq situation is lack of communication w/ the American public. Reagan, Bush 1, or Clinton would be in front of a camera speaking to the nation a lot more about goals, timelines, etc. The country is tired of Rumsfield and Co.
BonoVoxSupastar said:
This is so true. I don't think he's a communicator and that's one of his biggest draw backs.