smokinall Posted August 7, 2007 Posted August 7, 2007 I say yea but no. Yea because they knocked down our buildings and stuff..we needed to show them we are'nt wusses and we do retaliate for whats done to us. Is a good comment, but EVERY one (but military and some other officials), knows that the bombing WAS a retaliation from Iraq. I'm Canadian and I have family, friends fighting RIGHT now over in Afganastan. Some of high ranking and before the Twin Towers incedent, America, yes AMERICA WAS 100% fighting with the Iraqi people for years before the 9/11. The Americans who didn't know, lol thanks to ur goverenment altering the media (cause the americans think they have laws against that, but there IS loop holes.) The US goverenment is the ONLY 100% legalized MOB. Think of this, Drug Dealers Territory. One fights to control his territory and another fights to gain control of more territory. Think of this, US Goverenment VS. Iraq. One fights to keep control of his OIL/territory (Iraq) and the other (US Goverenment) fights to take control of his Oil/territory ( Iraq). The Irqai people only did what the Americans ALL say they did,'We attacked in retaliation." But all in all who is REALY retaliating? Not that I am supporting of what the Iraqi did at 9/11, all I'm saying is this, The fight in Iraq, Afganastan, and all the other parts, there IS no reason why any one but the US should be fighting this, The US started this fight, well sorry, "Power Hungry, Don't Give A Crap, Daddy's Boy Bush Jr." is the one who started it. LOL My problem solver.....Get all the troops EVERY last one out, take Bush thorw his Pencil ***k Body on plane over there and tell Bin-Laden to come fight Bush one on one. winner gets oil. Bush wants it so bad he can stop killin our family and loved ones and other inicent people and fist fight to the death with Osama.....Heck I will even put $100 bucks on Osama just to make it intersting......LOL Ok enough ranting and by the way I voted "NO"
naynesh Posted September 9, 2007 Posted September 9, 2007 i think that the soilder who went to war was stupid and loads of people were killed i think it was a rubbish idea Would you say that we should send more troops to wars e.g. afganistan,iraq
Fly America Virtual Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 Well, the UN sponsered the afghanistan fighting, and I see nothing wrong with it... I mean, UN agreed. Cant say the same about Iraq. The UN Did Agree But They've Should'nt Because The UN Is Fighting For World Peace And This Is Not Helping The UN Nor The World, If President George Bush Did'nt Do This We Woul'nt Have Had Any Attempts By Al Queda Which Killed Tens Of Thousands Of People
Catara Posted December 7, 2007 Posted December 7, 2007 It looks like many of you are confusing the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan with the invasion of Iraq. These are two totally unrelated things. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with the al-Qaeda attacks of September 11th, 2001. The United States and the United Nations had plenty of evidence linking the attacks of 9-11 with al-Qaeda. Afghanistan was run by the Taliban at the time and it was shown that they were allowing al-Qaeda to operate training facilities within their country. That is why we went into Afghanistan. Iraq was not shown to be harboring al-Qaeda nor was it's government linked to the 9-11 attacks. In fact, when Bush had us invade Iraq he removed forces from Afghanistan to do it, all but abandoning the search for bin Laden.
euler Posted January 1, 2008 Posted January 1, 2008 The reasons are completly economic, the territory... and the womans in afganisthan (sorry hehe)
Ch33se H4ck3r Posted January 3, 2008 Posted January 3, 2008 Personally, I agree with any Military action that has been accepted by the UN, so Afghanistan was a good idea. But if we start looking at bad ideas.... Iraq. Never should have happened. It is a good thing that Bush is in his last year at office. He was trying to finish of 'Daddy's War', and by doing so, opened one hell of a can of worms...
amir Posted January 4, 2008 Posted January 4, 2008 I have heard that bush makes countries have war with him on purpose because of money. War brings money. War brings money by weapons, armory and more. To make those weapons you need workers so he thinks if he gets wars he can make money my making weapons. Know what I mean!
co1dfus1on Posted January 12, 2008 Posted January 12, 2008 All people must live in peace? That is far away from now my freind, as long as we have countries and conflicting beliefs there will always be war. you can see some conflicts that will arise in the future, such as Christian idiots, Cina, Meixican immigration here. Some of things are actually quite disturbing. Maybe far away from now, but we live in hope.
Everlast7 Posted January 16, 2008 Posted January 16, 2008 From my understanding of it, it does not seem to be in our (US) best interest no, but the world's, yes.
byc90 Posted January 31, 2008 Posted January 31, 2008 Well, in the last decade or so, US is looked upon as a reliable 'Big Brother'. Just so happens that under Bush, US made a fool of itself on the international arena. No offence, but [bleeped!] happens. War in Iraq should never have happened. Where the hell is that WMD stockpile? AHA! Blind accusations. Results? Death of innocent people.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now