Comments on: Iraq War as Retribution for 9/11

By: Caylee

Caylee — Fri, 24 Sep 2004 18:38:39 +0000

I am a senior in high school and one of my main projects this year is to “be a candidate.” I was chosen to play the role of George Bush and sadly, I dont know much about politics. One main topic that I have to debate is war and terrorism. I am asking you and everyone else who reads this- to please help me with pro facts about Bushs choices ton going to war etc. BTW this artical was a great start for me!
Thank you

By: heather

heather — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:18:55 +0000

we should all just trust in jesus

By: heather

heather — Thu, 11 Sep 2003 20:18:43 +0000

we should all just trust in jesus

By: Adam

Adam — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 04:15:20 +0000

I *was* wondering why we invaded Monaco. :-)

By: Michael Williams

Michael Williams — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 02:07:40 +0000

ARGH. I mean MOROCCO.

MOROCCO

By: Michael Williams

Michael Williams — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:57:38 +0000

I mean Monocco. Duh.

By: Master of None

Master of None — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:54:54 +0000

Morocco and Iraq
John Callender at Lies writes that many advocates of the battle in Iraq see our invasion as a direct result of 9/11. This is true. He goes on to say, however, that because there as been little evidence of a…

By: Master of None

Master of None — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:42:17 +0000

Monaco and Iraq
John Callender at Lies writes that many advocates of the battle in Iraq see our invasion as a direct result of 9/11. This is true. He goes on to say, however, that because there as been little evidence of a…

By: Madison

Madison — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:18:43 +0000

Today I opened up the Los Angeles Times, and read an article titled Read Between the Lines of Those 28 Missing Pages. It relates to the recently released 9/11 report, minus the 28 pages not allowed to be released by the White House, that in many peoples� opinion makes clear that the U.S. should have focused on Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq (or Afghanistan) in the aftermath of Sept. 11. I had to look around a little, but here�s the Report. It�s nearly 1000 pages in length, and the omissions could well be the most important parts of the document, but from the skimming I did I was satisfied that the conclusion that intelligence did not demonstrate a connection between the Sept. 11 bombing and Iraq is supported by the report.

By: Michael Williams

Michael Williams — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:18:29 +0000

Even if you don’t believe there was a direct connection between al Qaeda and Saddam (despite some evidence of such a relationship), you can’t deny two things:

1. Saddam was directly involved with other terrorist groups, such as Hamas.

2. Saddam was a part of the vast swamp responsible for breeding Arab Muslim terror around the world.

Saddam’s Iraq was the low-hanging fruit. Defeating him and helping to build a liberal democracy in his place will go a long way towards eventually eliminating the true root cause of terrorism.

In WW2, the first place America invaded was Monaco. Why? Because Monaco had attacked Pearl Harbor? No, of course not. For strategic reasons it was a sensible place to start our campaign against our main enemies: Japan and Germany. Same with Iraq.

By: Adam

Adam — Tue, 29 Jul 2003 19:29:35 +0000

That article by Christy Ferer was profoundly disturbing, especially for laying bare the psychosis that has gripped this country since 9/11.

“To me, those troops were there to avenge the murder of my husband and 3,000 others.”

This woman’s grief is understandable, and I begrudge her none of it. But how her grief and the grief and anger of this country has mutated into insanity is the real tragedy.