The 9/11 commision already concluded that Iraq was not invloved. Saying
otherwise does not make it so.



>>Because they harbored Bin Laden. He is the one who attacked
>>us, not Iraq
>
>Iraq was just as guilty of providing a safe haven for terrorist cells as well. Terrorists are terrorists no matter where they are.
>
>>>>There WAS no danger of Iraq attacking us. So why did we go off and attack them?
>>>
>>>I know what it means, you missed my point. There was no danger of Afganistan attacking us either. So why did we invade them?
>>>
>>>>>So if no strike from Irag was believed to be imminent, and part of the definition is "an enemy strike is believed to be imminent", how can the strike then be pre-emptive?
>>>>>
>>>>>(This is basically a rhetorical question, and the argument gets a bit absurd at this point. I just feel argumentative for the sake of just "stirring the pot".)