Why do conservatives focus on Iraq and Iran, when the 9-11 report pointed to other countries?

Question

I keep hearing conservatives seem to focus so much on terrorists and Iraq and Iran in the war on terror...

when those that attacked us were mainly from Saudi Arabia and had more links to places like Afghanistan (which we did invade, and I supported that) and Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia and Indonesia?

Shouldn't we start with the countries with major links first... there are about 30 other countries with minor links like Iran and Iraq to 9-11?

Pancakes... so, someone that hasn't attacked us... or any other country... is a bigger threat than a group that killed 3,000 Americans on U.S. soil?

do you even know what you're talking about? Germany had the best weapons in the world at the time, and took over Europe... Iran is barely above a third-world nation that hasn't attacked anyone and is years away from developing nuclear technology?

Everyone in the area hates Israel...

Christopher B: I'm simply saying we should strike at the source of the problem... where ever the evidence leads...

the 9-11 report had more links to Saudi than any other country... but they are our friends?

I wouldn't invade mexico to stop the drugs... I would hit Columbia.. at the source... where the problems come from... I wouldn't invade Brazil so it would be a "jumping off point"... just take out the problem... and the main one for the U.S. is Osama...

So... as long as your "friends" with America... it doesn't matter what evidence points to the blatant terrorist links in your country?

Sounds very naive and a nice cover for terrorists

thealligator414: aren't the al-Queda training bases in Somalia, Sudan and indonesia... maybe we should care about that?

and I don't trust Saudi or Pakistan any more than Iran... in fact, I trust them less... at least iran tell us they hate us and they don't even have the links that the other two have..

they killed 3,000... I think that makes it our problem...

and the al-queda links to Iran are minimal from what I've seen... no more than egypt, jordan, uae, quatar...

Answer 1

I think many conservatives still believe the reason we attacked Iraq was because of terrorism. I know some people like to talk about oil, but that is the reason we don't attack Saudi Arabia. The Royal Saudi family does business with us, so it would be bad economics to attack them outright. If people think the price of oil is high now, attack Saudi Arabia. There would be no point in owning a car if you didn't make a high six figure salary. The U.S. is trying to influence the Royal Saudi family to change the way they educate their young. A lot of the hatred towards America stems from their hatred of Israel, and since the U.S. government supports everything Israel does, we will always be hated. This can change if the younger Saudi generations are taught religious toleration instead of the revised Islam they are taught now.

I also agree with you on Pakistan. The fact that Bin Laden still roams free is in part their fault. By not allowing coalition forces to work on their side of the border, Osama will always have an escape route. One that they don't seem to anxious to block. They also offer safe harbor to scientists who teach nuclear physics to terrorists. Unlike Saudi Arabia, I have no idea why we don't put more pressure on them to help out. Taking someone on their word only goes so far, and Pakistan saying they help fight the "war on terror" has about reached that limit.

Answer 2

Well, lets see - Saudia Arabia is our ally. By your logic, we should invade Mexico because drug runners come from there.
However, the country of Iraq was an open and hostile enemy of the state. After they invaded our ally (Kuwait), were driven back, and signed a peace treaty - they attacked our war planes almost daily while they enforced the no fly zone that kept Iraq from eradicating their Kurdish population (in open defiance of said peace treaty). And Iraq would be the perfect jump off point to start destabilizing those Muslim Fundamentalist who so desparately want to control and convert all of the Middle East. Lets see, who else had plans like that..... Oh yeah, Hitler. But I am sure they are different and will be appeased once they control the middle east (and 75% of the worlds petroleum).
And Iran - they are some friendly peace lovers aren't they? Ohhh wait, there is that whole "We will destroy Israel" speech the PRESIDENT of Iran gave - all while he is trying to develop nuclear technology. And it can't be a coincidence that Hezbollah terrorists are firing Iranian built missiles at Israel. Where did they find those, 7-11?

P.s. Rubi, you are just a plain idiot, and a racist. You would compare a country of people who choose to etch out a place of their own in a land that hate and despise them simply because of their religion to a Genocidal Fascist Regime bent on worldwide domination and the death of all Jews? Israel did not attack Lebanon, the Lebanonese backed Hezbollah terrorists attacked Israel.

P.P.S. In case you weren't aware of this, Saudi Arabia is trying to deal with their terrorist problems. They have had more attacks within their borders than we have. Why would we invade a country that is our ally, supplies us with the majority of our oil, and is trying hard to deal with the extremists within their own ranks? That makes as much sense as invading Columbia, a country that is another ally and a trade partner who is working with us on their drug problem. Ever heard the saying you don't swat at flies with a baseball bat?

Answer 3

Conservatives?? What does anyone's political affiliation have to do with the enemy, unless you're implying liberals are ignorant. Countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia are full of muslim extremists, but their governments are not supporters of terror. As for the other countries, I don't think anyone is ignoring them. If the United Nations wasn't such a joke, real inroads could be made to rid these "other" countries of terrorists and stop the flow of arms and technology to these groups. Without help, the U.S. can only address the most immediate danger first.

Answer 4

Jeezus, guy. you may want to placed the cart AFTER the horse with your question and ask what the hell is so particular about the US that Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia may opt to attack US. Then, and easily then, will your question be responded. (For those of you in Rio Linda, the literal answer to the question as to why we may opt to attack those international places is to PRE-EMPT, HEAD OFF AND/OR stop assaults antagonistic to US before yet another 9/11 takes position.) EDIT: once you're "denomding" the reality, nicely, the following that is. Thirty years in the past, in 1978, the Shah of Iran changed into being overthrown by using some wacky bearded fellow by using the call of Khomeini, and Carter changed into doing no longer some thing about U.S. hostages being held there. If issues had lengthy gone my way, your uncle's e book may have study "The U.S. HAS ALREADY invaded Iran, and collapsed them like a rotten football." As for some thing else of those places, the lot who were drawing paychecks from the CIA understood how risky they were to the US, yet President Carter both did not pay interest to them or couldn't understood a word they stated because HE HAD PEANUTS IN HIS EARS. There. You "Denomded" the reality and that i gave it to you.

Answer 5

Ok. First, Saudi Arabia is one of only a few arab gov'ts that are not led by radical muslims or being held hostage so to speak my radical muslim groups. Secondly, we gain more by prodding the Saudi's to quietly show us where all of the terror funds from their country go to post 9/11. Sometimes it's better to sit back and see who all the players are, and hopefully cripple the criminal element, than to go in guns a blazin and eliminate the bit players.

Pakistan is led by a moderate muslim general who took power via military coup. Radical Islamo-fascists in his own country have tried to assasinate him twice. They also, according to recent analysis, have roughly 50 nukes, big or small. Would it be smarter to attack Pakistan, eliminate their current leader (who happens to be assisting us, albeit cautiously) and open the door for radical muslim elements to take power of not only the country but the nukes, or to prop him up, support him and work together with him to contain Bin Laden to the Pakistani-Afghani border? Maybe it's just me, but Iran and Pakistan with nukes and led by religious finatics bent on the destruction of the U.S. and Israel would be BAD!!

Sudan has what links?? Bin Laden spent time there, terorists are there, I know. But the stategic value of attacking this country is nill. The Sudan is better of being the focus of a peace keeping force with some teeth to end the current humanitarian crisis. I'm thinking NATO or the E.U. Let's face it, European colonialism started the problem in Africa, let them fix it.

Same with Somalia.

Indonesia will be the problem of Russia and China, who will both be targets if and when radical muslims their gain a foothold in gov'ts.

Iran, on the other hand, has a direct and documented link to just about every major terrorist incident against the U.S. If you think the Iranians didn't offer support to Al-Qaeda you are wrong. It is documented and it is fact. They support every major Islamic terrorist organization: Al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, PIJ, the Taliban, Ansar Islam, and the terrorist groups in Iraq.

Answer 6

I like my pancakes with a little syrup not a ton. The Middle East in 2006 is just like the Middle East in 1006....that's the problem folks.

Conservatives don't question the party line that they are given. Bush tells them its Iraq, they say ok let's go. Questioning the system and the possible lies it is telling them isn't high on their agenda.

You are of course correct. Iraq was on the Cheney-Rumsfeld agenda long before 9/11. 9/11 simply gave them the catalyst that they needed.

We should be way more afraid of the Saudis and radical Egyptians. The most dangerous enemy is always the one standing behind you.

Answer 7

Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, north Korea...are all terrorist supporting countries. It is their goal to kill us all, they have stated this. Take them out now before they get nuclear weapons. Take them out on their land before they come to our land. Sure there are civilian deaths, better them than us. Yes there are other countries we will get them all eventually. I keep hearing conservatives make a lot of sense myself. I keep hearing liberals appeasing the enemy and committing treason. Appeasement will only get us killed? Did we ask for 9-11, no bill Clinton and the other liberals just didn't do anything to stop it. Those times are over we will strike first.

Answer 8

A radical, Islamic terrorist is a radical, Islamic terrorist. It doesn't matter where he's from. We're now focusing on Iran, because Iran is a terror nation that is trying to make nukes. Why do Libs have half of a brain stem?

Answer 9

Anybody who has an IQ above 100 knows Iran is the next Nazi Germany. You might read up a little on it too. 2006 is very much like 1938.

Answer 10

In you-know-who's mind , he probably thought of SADAAM as the 2nd most dangerous man in the East .
By going after the wrong man , they opened a hornet's nest that will never be calmed down