Dear Mods, this long derailed crazy thread needs a lock please :) Thank you

[QUOTE="pimpog"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Link? Every news agency aired that no WMDs were found. How does that mean you were misled?testfactor888

Everybody knows after 9/11 bush said the Al-Qaeda were based in Iraq and that they ordered the attack and also Sadam had WMD's. He also showed some phoney spy shots of the WMD's and said we must strike now. Osama was never in Iraq or any of the other claims that bush made were ever even remotrly proven to be true and yet the troops are still there.

Which is a shame really. The Middle East shouldn't be synonymous with terrorism. And the wars are far from different - they're both illegal, unjust and for essentially the same reasons.

In fact, neither of them are actually wars. They were the agressive invasions of two sovereign nations that had done absolutely nothing to provoke the United States. We shouldn't have been there to begin with.

raynimrod

Actually, we invaded Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden after the 9/11 attacks. We gave them a time limit to do so and they refused, so we went in after him. Obviously, he got away. Iraq is a different story. Saddam did a great job in making us think he had WMDs. He did such a great job that we invaded as a result. We actually found some stuff in there. We didn't find any nukes (obviously) but we did find some chemical weapons that he claimed were disposed of. Google "Iraq Yellowcake" for an example. People can debate all day long whether or not we had the right to go into Iraq but we had a reason to go into Afghanistan. With Iraq, you know something is wrong when you're driving through Iraqi towns that are in total poverty (makes even the worst US cities look like Beverly Hills in comparison) but when you reach one of Saddam's many palaces you find a gold-plated AK-47.