- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #16
Fly said:I think that once we were attacked by SAUDI ARABIAN terrorists housed in AFGANISTAN we should have concentrated on those areas...don't you? Enough of our goody two shoes, let's protect people who don't want to be protected bs. Take care of business, not personal agendas.
[post="177094"][/post]
The big diference here is that while Osama is Saudi, he is not sponsored by the Saudi Government. Sadam was sponsoring Osama. That is called state sponsored terrorism and is one of the major reasons why we went into iraq along with all the others.
You seem to keep forgetting that the UN had authorized the use of force to require Sadam prove that he was dismantling those weapons. He did not show that he was, he kicked out UN inspectors on more that one occasion.
He took money that was supposed to be used for feed and cloth his own people and used that to buy weapons from who France, to continue to arm his supporters again, against UN resolutions.
Diplomacy failed for 11 years. There was and is to this day a credible link that Sadam, AKA the governement of IRAQ was actively supporting osama and Al-queida. The weapons are there or were smugled into syria and are there. The proof is there of support for terrorism, the same terrorists that attacked out country and would do so again with the help, support and blessing of Sadam.
I do not see the governement of Saudi actively supporting Osama.
Funny how all this came about based on another flip-flop by Kerry. Man you guys should work for his campaign. You are pretty good at deflection.