But no the answer is not why Poland shouldn't sebd troops, they were saying that Sadam had nuclear, that he had toxics and mass destraction weapons, where are all these? Global threat yes , i don't have any other opinion about this. so we will strike first, without evidences for the posibility of not being hit from terorrism...When Poland had problems with terrorists? And from our side (west) they are terorosts from their side (arabs ) USA is terorist and fo me too USA is the biggest terorist...The point is that now your army there is occupation army, it isn't?
uuuummm the US Army is not mine, i'm British, so lets get that clear.
Secondly these weapons of mass destruction, who cares, without them Saddam needed removing from power, so do a few other dictators around the world, there is one in zimbabwe i can think of for sure :). If your not against the terrorists and willing to fight them, then where the heck are you, with them?? THe commitment to fighting terror is a global affair and not just on the shoulders of the USA and GB.
As far as striking first against terrorists, why not?? whats wrong with that, do you want us to sit back and let it happen and then react. In all walks of life it is better to be pro active rather than re-active.
USA is the biggest terorist.
typical softy softy approach, you are blinded by the uniforms, the invasion is real yes but so is the invasion of terrorists, they don't wear uniforms, they don't have signs on their helmets, damn they don't even wear them. So don't talk about who and who is not the terrorists :)
It would be nice answer for practice :P
so then practise, i've told you in two posts why poland should send troops, so tell me why they shouldn't???