1  |   Order by index

Mar 9, 2003, 4:59pm

I have seen not even one proof that Saddam is supporting Al-Quaida, have
you?
And if we assume Saddam has supported terrorism, and we know USA has
supported Saddam; should we draw the conclusion that USA has supported
terrorism?
And if this was is about a revange ( as you actually said) , how come USA
did not attack directly after the attack, why wait this long, and if one has
waited this long, what is the harm of waiting a bit longer ?
And why is Bush lying that the war is about helping the the iraqi people
achive freedoom, when it is obviously it is a revench attack? I would not
hate Bush so much if he would be honest, tell it like it it and not lying
about the reasons for war.

Drac
sw chris <chrisw10 at skywalkeronline.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:3e6ae01a$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> Idiot.
>
> Here's what happened. September 11 happened. Bush declares war on
> terrorism, NOT Al Qaeda, which was responsible for the attacks. That
means
> all terrorists and their allies or would-be allies. That includes Saddam.
> And that's the reasoning. It's not finishing up daddy's business. That's
a
> stupid reason. I can't believe you don't know this. Or maybe I can.
Every
> other reply you've given (well almost, that one up there about moral
> relativism was pretty good, kudos) is way beyond even the european
> definition of "liberal".
>
> SW Chris
>
>
>
[View Quote]

1  |   Order by index