Thread: NO! Chemical weapons in Iraq???
View Single Post
Old 06-22-2006, 01:58 PM   #69
scaeagles
I LIKE!
 
scaeagles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 7,819
scaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of coolscaeagles is the epitome of cool
Quote:
Originally Posted by innerSpaceman
Just why is it so important to have a war against international terrorism anyway? Is it really so dangerous? Al Queda has inflicted exactly one successful attack on U.S. soil, killing around 3,000 people.

Luckily, I won't be around to read more of scaeagles very loose rationale for bloody, murderous war. I was beginning to like the guy, he's very nice in person ... but it kills me to read how cavalier he is with other peoples' lives and misery.
Why was it so important to have a war on Japan? Were they really so dangerous? The attack on Pearl Harbor killed just over 2700 people.

To answer my own question, it was because they had designs on much more than Pearl Harbor. Radical islamic terrorists have their agenda as well.

If disagreement or my "cavalier attitude" causes you not to like me, so be it. I will not lose sleep. I do fail to see anything suggesting I am cavalier. All I am suggesting is that Saddam was the one who chose war and no one else.
scaeagles is offline   Submit to Quotes Reply With Quote