Quote:
Originally posted by kipperfan+Oct 18 2004, 07:53 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (kipperfan @ Oct 18 2004, 07:53 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@Oct 19 2004, 02:50 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-kipperfan
|
Quote:
@Oct 19 2004, 02:45 AM
Yes, and you and your fellow Americans whole heartedly supported his removal from power, with extreme force.
Bad example.
|
Continually? Please back that up.
|
Continually may be a "micheal moore stretch", but fact remains that the American foriegn policy under Bush is an intrusive one, that holds the prioritys of america in higher standing than the soveriegnty of foriegn citizens. [/b][/quote]
Micheal Moore shouldn't be referenced too here, not in the arguement of America's foreign policy.
And now you think Bush should have sat back and done nothing about the attacks on 9/11?
How is it an intrusive one if Bush invaded Iraq to insure sovereignty? I think you fail to realize that the citizens of Iraq weren't sovereign under Saddam, he controlled their every move.
And when a revolution started he got rid of it quick.
You're putting yourself in a corner by calling the Americans foreign policy intrusive.
He wouldn't surrender when Bush asked him too, so there was no choice but extreme force. He didn't give up power so the US took it from him. Simple Really.