Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rhertz
Roughrider,
but I do feel that our individual answers depend on our ultimate belief in our government; its intelligence and military agencies, various branches of government, and their motives. You know, those guys we send 35% of our paychecks to!
|
The "blind faith" answer.. that's always bad news.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rhertz
For those less jaded by government, maybe the answer is equally simple. Maybe they got it right. Yes you heard me; they received intelligence of a possible threat and acted on it, only the huge delay in action caused Saddam to prepare by moving the threat to a neighboring country such as Syria or else bury it in the sand. This is very possible, even likely given the “countdown” that we gave him. What would you do in his shoes given a stopwatch ticking downward? Is Saddam evil or dysfunctional?
|
O.K. I'll give you that one for sake of argument... So when Bush stood on the aircraft carrier and declared "Mission Accomplished" why didn't we pull out then ??
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rhertz
I have no idea which answer is “the truth”, or if there is a third answer to consider. Imagine being president after 911 and having a second attack occured. This hasn’t happened in half a decade. But it could have. Maybe the question is why haven’t we been attacked on homeland soil in the past 5 years? And if we had, would the number of deaths equal 2000 plus? Or exceed it? Who knows?
|
Well if that's the case, why haven't we spent half the time/money/troops in Afganistan and surrounding area looking for BIN LADEN ?? as opposed to our cost in Iraq. Iraq does not = Al Quaida and Bin Laden.. There are people, factions.. nations in this world who want us dead a lot more than the people of Iraq do.
Apparently your answer sounds like .... We have to "Fight them over there" so we don't have to fight them here.. fine, lets freakin' go after somebody like Bin Laden, or Iran. Something we can all get a grip on .
thanks for the reply..
Rough Rider.
