bah, sources? i just liked the statement.. course it could have been shorter.
pre-emptive ie: lets get them before they can get us back, claiming that they were going to strike us. which has not been proven. yea, yea there's lots of pundits saying we've done this before.. is that any reason to do it again!?
Quote:
|
And think of it this way, if I'm a criminal, if I'm hiding a ton of guns, wouldn't a law banning them in my town benefit me? Think of it. I'm a criminal so I don't follow the law, and since no one else has guns, how can you enforce the law?
|
so your saying saddam is the criminal? sorry i think of bush when you say criminal ..saddam is way the fuck out there in the middle east and no friggen threat to us.. bush is our threat. If saddam makes one move.. the allies will throw in with us and our strikes..
if we attacked military only and used surgical strikes we would protect iraqis and not create any more usa haters.. but that's not the plan, the plan is not about liberating iraqis or stopping a mad dictator.. if it was our corporate government wouldnt be acting this way.. it's gonna backfire if we strike iraq.
Threaded Mode
