ForumsWEPRyour thoughts on 9/11 and the iraq qar that followed

15 2598
kakashi890
offline
kakashi890
205 posts
Nomad

well its 9/11 again and i want to see what every one thinks about what happened. i think it was right to attack iraq,but i think that [and this is just my thought] iran needed to pay for their help in 9/11 and yes i think they did atlest some of it.

  • 15 Replies
Veobahamut
offline
Veobahamut
887 posts
Nomad

Your supposed to replace Iraq with Al qeauda and 890 with 420.

HEADHUNTER58
offline
HEADHUNTER58
370 posts
Nomad

****my toughts****

for years the americans have been bombing iraq, this made the iraqies very very angry and formed terrorists groups bent on getting revenge on the west.

THE AMERICANS LET THIS HAPPEN!

they would have shoot down the planes before they could reach there target because there was LESS people in the planes then in the towers.

this gave the americans a VERY good reason to invade and take ALL the oil they wanted.

who would do such a thing? bush was a TEXAN!

kakashi890
offline
kakashi890
205 posts
Nomad

well you must not know a very very old but still widely known law,AMERICA CAN NO DEPLOY ITS ARMED FORCES IN SIDE OF AMERICA.SO HOW THE HELL DID WE LET IT HAPPEN IF WE CAN'T HAVE ANTI AIR MISSLES ON EVERY STREET LIKE THE RUSSIANS?

kakashi890
offline
kakashi890
205 posts
Nomad

oh and bty although i think bush did a suckie job he was still at one time the president of america which [my thoughts again] means hes better then more then 50% of all the people in the world.

kakashi890
offline
kakashi890
205 posts
Nomad

oh and one more thing. if we shot it down over new york it would of killed way more people so even if we could, we don't shoot it down

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

It would be disingenuous of me to condemn the Iraq war, as in the beginning, I did support it. However, with the benefit of hindsight, I believe that it was a foreign policy failure.

You cannot invade a country based on shaky intelligence. Even at the time I was a tad skeptical. For example, Blair and other pro war MPs said 2 things: that we needed to invade because Saddam had extremely powerful weapons, and was a major threat, and also that we needed to strike quickly whilst he was still weak. See the contradiction?

Yet another example of why I resent Parliamentary Sovreignty being undermined by Washington.

Pau11Wa11
offline
Pau11Wa11
527 posts
Nomad

I believe it was the right thing to do when we invaded iraq.
When we were attacked on 9/11, it was because saddam was angry that we were trying to restore order in iraq and cease his corruption. when he attacked us on 9/11 he also sent out a video shortly after that saying that he was declaring us to war. so if we hadnt gone in and taking control over there then he would just keep attacking us. that is also why obama cannot stop this war. he might keep us from fighting but saddam and other terrorists will not stop until they see that they have won. that is why we must fight. not for our freedom, but for others as well.

donpiet
offline
donpiet
755 posts
Peasant

saddam hussein was in no way responsible for the attacks from 9/11.
osama bin laden and his terrorist organisation were.
that why the us invaded afghanistan first. the suspected him there.
the iraq war had nothing to do with 9/11. it was started because the iraq "had" weapons of mass destruction. the bush administration used the term war on terror on this campaign again, in this way they could justify this move easier

kakashi890
offline
kakashi890
205 posts
Nomad

well the only weapons of mass destrucion are in iran not iraq and you bashing bush fpr this mess is wrong bush said and i quote "i will take all the blame for any terrorist attacks in the next 20 years" but i don't know why hes giveing those who come after him a free pass...oh maybe its beucause he is a true american who loves his country just like me.

donpiet
offline
donpiet
755 posts
Peasant

it was started because the iraq "had" weapons of mass destruction.


the "" above the word had marked the sarcasm.
the iraq had not any weapons of mass destruction.
the iraq did not help terrorists doing 9/11.
i do not bash any governement in general. i simply point out the mistakes. the iraq war had no legitimation at all.
kakashi890
offline
kakashi890
205 posts
Nomad

don you are a idiot iraq,iran and osama were all behind the bombing of the twin towers

donpiet
offline
donpiet
755 posts
Peasant

well not even the governement did accuse the iraq of being responsible for the attack. so maybe you care to provide some proof. something else then the empty assurements that were given at the time.
i mean we were assured that weapons of mass destruction are in iraq. they were never found and never existed

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

don you are a idiot iraq,iran and osama were all behind the bombing of the twin towers


Iraq had nothing to do with 911. It was a bunch of Saudi Arabians, Lebanese and Egyptians financed by a Saudi Arabian guy living in Afghanistan who was sheltered by Pakistanis.

Saddam was too busy killing his own people to bother with America.

The Iranians had barely recovered since the previous war with Iraq.

Leave them out of it.
Showing 1-13 of 15