Because of this, it was fairly important that this process is stopped, because without these sanctions, we felt that if Iraq does not have any WMD, they will soon. But that’s not all. We have already proven that Hussein has broken many of the sanctions in the past decade and a half.

We have found terrorist training camps within their borders. We also found the body of Abu Nidal (also know as Sabri Al-Banna) in Baghdad. Abu Nidal is probably one of the most important figures in global terrorism to date, even more so than Osama Bin Laden considering the fact that Abu Nidal has been in the “business” for much longer. Now we find out he has been hiding out in Baghdad. Iraq was also in possession of long range missiles and was developing ones that had even longer ranges. Sanctions prohibited Iraq from possessing such weapons in fear that they would be able to strike at Israel without even leaving their borders. Iraq attacked the Kurds to their north with toxic nerve gas. Not only is that against the Geneva Convention, but sanctions placed on Iraq prohibited the use of his military in an offensive manner.

So basically, something should have been done with Iraq YEARS ago, but I guess you can’t rely on the UN to actually enforce sanctions unless they involve collecting large sums of money or oil, which we know the former head of the UN was involved in. And although it is KNOWN that Clinton and his democratic followers believed in invading Iraq back in 1998, we can’t expect Clinton to do anything that would cause his popularity ratings to go down. So of course he dropped the topic when he found out it was not popular with the people. If you doubt this, I don’t need to prove anything, Clinton and his followers have said it themselves. Yes, I have quotes of ALL of the people who is currently talking crap about Bush now, making the same statements and coming to the same conclusions about Iraq back when Clinton was still president. How is that for hypocrisy?

Then of course there is Osama Bin Laden. Most people have only heard of his name after 11-September-2001, but the truth of the matter is, Osama Bin Laden has attacked out country and our countrymen about 15 times during Clinton’s administration. The only difference is that Clinton didn’t do anything about it. The funniest thing is that in 1996 Sudan actually had Osama Bin Laden. And at the time, he was already our number one most wanted person in the FBI’s most wanted list, so it’s not like he wasn’t important then. He had killed hundreds, thousands of innocent lives through terrorism at that point.

The only problem is that the Sudanese government knew they cannot prosecute Osama Bin Laden because their population is largely Muslim and they were afraid of the backlash of prosecuting someone like Bin Laden. So they offered him to Clinton, on a freakin silver platter, and Clinton refused, didn’t want to go through the trouble. So Sudan had no choice but to release him… Now, if you tell me that you don’t think that has almost directly RESULTED in the attacks on the WTC on 11-September-2001, you’re lying to yourself.

“But why does he hate us anyway?” you ask. Well, the answer is actually quite simple if you look at it from a psychological stand-point. I hate when people cite the moral and ideological reasoning Bin Laden also cites as the reason for his hatred. This, in a way, is actually justifying his actions against innocent human lives. The real reason has NOTHING to do with any of that trash you hear him talking about. Osama Bin Laden rose to fame when he helped the Afghan people push out the invading Russian military. The Afghan people, and Muslims all around, revered him as some kind of hero. Then Iraq invades Kuwait. Osama Bin Laden is hungry to have that feeling of being the hero and offers his help and the help from his Mujahedeen followers to fight off the Iraqi forces. But Saudi Arabia offers Kuwait hundreds of thousands of troops from the USA. Of course Kuwait isn’t completely stupid, they accept the aid from the US military instead of Osama Bin Laden and his rag tag group of “freedom fighters.”

Well, Osama Bin Laden is a sociopath and this does not please him at all. He wants to be the center of attention and wants to be looked to for help, but the USA gets this honor instead. This is the real reason for his terrorist actions and intentions. It has nothing to do with whatever sins he accuses us of, it has nothing to do with whatever holy land whatever sacred crap he keeps claiming, it has all to do with him and how he is angry they picked the logical choice over him. Plain and simple. The guy is big-headed and full of himself, and for this stupid retarded reason, he has murdered thousands of innocent lives. I guess terrorism doesn’t have to make sense.

Also, gun laws defy logic. Think about it this way, why do we classify some people as criminals? Because they commit crime right? And what defines something as a crime? The fact that it goes against our laws. So you can safely assume that these criminals have no interest in following laws right? So tell me, why exactly is it that these individuals would not follow laws about murder, rape, robbery, assault, but now politicians want us to believe that they will ALL OF A SUDDEN decide they want to abide by the laws when they pass a law regarding gun ownership? Think about that for a second. How will banning guns keep guns from criminals? Aren’t illegal drugs banned? They still get it and use it right? Isn’t it against the law to kill someone? They still do it right? But who does follow the laws? That’s right, law-abiding citizens like you and I. So really, when they pass these laws regarding gun ownership, it ONLY applies to you and I, not the criminals. Giving the criminal the advantage.

Now, there is a dangerous trend that I noticed about these politicians, and all you have to do is look at their voting record to see the pattern. Let’s take our new Speaker of the House Nancy Peloci. If you look at her previous voting record regarding gun laws, she’s always voted FOR any law that limits our rights to own firearms. Now that wouldn’t be so bad in itself, maybe she’s an idealist and she’s just against firearms and anything that could be interpreted as a symbol of violence. Fair enough. But then, you look at some of the other things she’s voted for. When it came time for her to vote for a law that would sentence a CONVICTED CRIMINAL who has used a firearm in the commission of a crime to a harsher sentence, she votes AGAINST it.

So wait, now I’m confused, how come when it comes to a broad law that affects law-abiding citizens more than criminals she votes for it, but when it comes to a law that focuses only on those who we know are criminals and have been doing harm on to others she votes against it? Is it just me or does it seem like she’s TRYING to help the criminals? I mean, she wants it to be harder for us to defend ourselves against the said criminal, and then to top it all off, if this criminal is actually caught, she wants them to serve as little time or as small of a sentence as possible? I mean, why so much concern for the criminal and not so much concern for you and I? And it’s not just Nancy Pelosi either, I just used her as an example since she has a lot of political power, which is scary, but this is the mentality of just about all of the politicians on that side of the gun law debate. In fact, Hillary is actually worse than Ms. Pelosi, scary, I know…