Really. You mean that after 8 years of that war criminal of bush and Cheney you think it's a good idea trust the crazies again? I hope no one in your family it's in the military.
With all respect...you want to have a constructive discussion? Keep up. What are we going back in time? 911 and bush are past thankfully.
You started the discussion around Bush and the war and I'm told to keep up for discussing it? With all respect of course!
Also you never answered my questions. What would YOU DO? It's easy to criticize, it's a lot harder to come up with a plan and take action.
There was never a link between Iraq and the 9-11 attacks. Even Bush finally admitted that. Did you not get the memo up there?
The invasion of auras was NOT supported by the American people and the Bush administration had to lie through their teeth to convince congress that an invasion was necessary. Then, as a result if total lack of planning for post Saddam Iraq, they left a leadership void that created the environment for sectarian violence.
Your understanding of world politics is painfully naive. With regard to Iraq, I would highly recommend watching two documentaries:
Sorry, but you are exceedingly naive and ignorant of many facts when it comes to this particular subject.
What do those documentaries and your comments have to do with reasons to invade? They cover the mistakes made in securing the country unless I'm mistaken. I'm naive but at least I can follow a train of thought!
BTW (this goes for all that attack the person instead of the issue), please look at the way I talk to people, and talk to me the same way. There is a level of sarcasm that is to me acceptable on a forum. And then there are personal attacks when someone disagrees with an opinion. Calling somebody naive, ignorant, saying "keep up" as if to imply I'm out to lunch... You're attacking the person instead of the issue.
It's pretty tough to debate fact on the internet, when in most cases the "facts" come from other sources on the internet, which may or may not have their roots in reality. I was hesitant to post the 88% stat but it was so massively one sided I figured even with error it would be hard to refute.
I'm happy to debate issues of theory. That is constructive. Again: you're a leader of a country which sustains a terrorist attack (forget about the potential advanced warning). What would you do? WHAT WOULD YOU DO?
And don't say move to Canada, we don't need any more liberals up here!