Was Iraq Worth It?

aeon

Council Member
Jan 17, 2006
1,348
0
36
I think not said:
aeon said:
I think not said:
SaintLucifer and Aeon having a chit chat, this will escalate into a Laurel and Hardy show.


As long he doesnt tell me, bagdad isnt safer than any american city, i won't make fun of him/her.

I said it was safer than Washington DC in terms of homicides you blow hole.


Whatever it is the same, as long as he/she doesnt mention bagdad as being safer than washington, i won't make fun of her/him.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Of course Iraq had stockpiles of nukes and biological/chemical weapons!

Witness the devastation wrecked upon the “Coalition of the Willing”

Invading Iraq was absolutely necessary. Just ask anyone living in a district where weapons’ manufacturing puts bread on the table!

Imagine for a moment what might have happened to those poor desperate investors in the Carlyle Group if Bush hadn’t created a market for more weaponry?

Why Clinton sent twenty cruise missiles into Baghdad…

June 26, 1993:

“On that date, the U.S. military, under the command of Bill Clinton, ordered 23 Tomahawk guided missiles to demolish the headquarters of the Mukhabarat, the Iraqi intelligence services, in central Baghdad. Twenty of the missiles hit the agency complex, while "only" three missed their targets.

Three of the million-dollar missiles missed their targets and landed on nearby homes, killing eight civilians, including Layla al-Attar, one of Iraqi’s most gifted artists.”
“The death toll was considered acceptable by the White House. Clinton administration officials acknowledged that they had been "lucky," as one national security aide put it, in that only three of the computer-guided missiles went off course.”

Thus, on a Saturday in June, the President and his advisers could not resist proving their toughness in the international arena. If they had truly had full confidence in what they were telling the press and the public about Saddam Hussein’s involvement in a plot to kill George Bush, they would have almost certainly ordered a far fiercer response than they did. As it was, confronted with evidence too weak to be conclusive but, in their view, perhaps not weak enough to be dismissed, they chose to fire missiles at night at an intelligence center in the middle of a large and populous city.”
Seymour Hersh

“U.S. citizens take pride in the fact that their society scorns bullies who pick on defenseless adversaries. However, they contradict their own philosophy by cheering on the murdering of foreign civilians who are the weakest prey of all.”

See even before 2001 and them evil-doer-Eyerackys were spoiling fer a fight!
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Don’t imagine for a moment that Clinton sending missiles into Baghdad or the Sudan was an act of war…or addressed with full acceptance of America’s latest excuse for its belligerence, an act of “terrorism”….

America never never never acts as the aggressor and never never never commits “terrorism”.

At best a million dollar missile loaded with high explosives sent into the heart of a city is…..yeah a love-note….

Well OK twenty sent ….but hey only three missed!