2u Republicans? Y do you insist Iraq has anything 2do w/ 9/11? And where is Osama--does Bush even care?

Question

I am a moderate

Answer 1

yeah i know
im not a republican..

Answer 2

I'm not a republican, but. I don't believe Iraq has much to do with 911. I think that the US is just after the oil. And the people are driven with fear to believe that Iraq is a threat to US security through propaganda, so that the people will support the government. I know that I am not completely sure, I don't know much about the topic so don't take it from me. Osama's probebly somewhere, and I believe that Bush care's about taking over Iraq or Iran or persia, which ever one has the second largest oil reserve in the world. Like I said, don't take it from me, read the book, it talks all about it. 9-11 and such.

Answer 3

You shouldn't always believe what you see in movies and the media but the movie Syriana pretty much says it all about the agenda for this war. It was never about Osama because the U.S. could have captured him along time ago. Look at the length of time it took to get Saddam. If you knock out the president who control the largest deposit of oil and charge him with war crimes and genocide, you will then have easier access to this with not much resistance. Bush knows what in the hell he's doing and people are just too blind to figure it out. He's using the terrorist attacks which were horrible as an excuse to continue. as long as he can feed fear into us then he has us all by the balls.!

Answer 4

I'm republican, and I know 9/11 and Iraq had nothing to do with each other.
About the only thing that links the two, is based off of responses to the Pals issue with Israel, as Saddam was sending money to families who kill their kids, turning them into walking bombs.
Osama, meanwhile, has tried supporting terrorists in this way, but felt with all his money from opium, could take the battle to america....but he didn't count on our response.
As for Osama's location, it's pretty obvious, he's hiding in the Kashmir region, in northern Pakistan. Why we don't get him, is the simple problem, of the region is a self-governing region, where warlords don't answer to the goverment.
As well, they look to osama, as a wonderful man, and his brainwashed army, would gladly go to hell, than turn him over....a sign of a truly brave man.
The biggest thing that stops us on the war against terrorists, is our selves, the liberal whiners, and the press, who believe everything terrorists say...but question the president.
If it was my task, I'd start nuking parts of Kashmir...and every day they don't send him out, I'd hit another town.
Eventually, you'll either hit him....or, they'll ship his *** out.

Answer 5

These Republicans that you speak of are the HYPNOTIZED AMERICANS: When Bush says that there is a pink elephant running around the room, they see a pink elephant and with relish!
Bush says Islamic-fascist and they echo the same. They are incapable of independent thought. Which means their IQ is on par with their mentor.

PS)Mr. Bin Laden is probably having tea with our intelligence. Get Bin Laden=no war=Bush has not grounds to be President

Answer 6

Propaganda. Plain and simple. No, Bush doesn't care about Osama anymore, hence why he disbanded the CIA unit, that was created for tracking him, a few months ago.

Answer 7

Where is Alqeda? If there is Alqeda in Iraq that alone is a good reason to stay, until they are all dead. Alzarqaui was Alqeda and his replacement is also.

Answer 8

your apparently not moderate....you have no clue what you are talking about...in case you didn't know all of middle east is islam...everyone is tied to each other!!! they all serve one god and have one mission in mind! apparently Bush cares or else we wouldnt be fighting Islamic fantics right now!

Answer 9

For the record, I form opinions on individual issues, not on a party line or some imaginary left-center-right spectrum.

Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and India were nations closest to Al Qaeda's base of operations (Afghanistan). We know two of these nations have WMD's (specifically, nuclear weapons). We also know that Iraq had used WMD's (chemical/biological) against its own non-Sunni population. We also know that Iran is resistant to any tampering with their nuclear ambitions.

So, going into October 2001, the US was faced with the situation as described above. Al Qaeda running a WORLDWIDE operation able to strike anywhere at anytime with grave consequences. Saddam tiring of UN/US meddling into his own personal affairs and seeking to leverage any asset in his arsenal to counter UN/US pressure on his administration. Musharraf under extreme duress by radical elements in his own government, army and population. Known transfers of nuclear and ballistic technology to Iran from Russia, China and N. Korea.

So, these things were KNOWN in October of 2001. What is it that the U.S., having been attacked by Middle Eastern Muslims on four different commercial jets within a span of 2 hours, under direction from well-financed supporters and members of Al-Qaeda, should consider doing as a response to this attack.

If you are an American who cares about your personal security (by that I mean, going to the grocery store without someone driving into it with an SUV full of C4), your future and that of your children and grandchildren, and all the other aspects of Americana that are free and safe to enjoy (including this lovely thing called the Internet)...if you care one iota about these things, you would want your government, Republican or Democrat or Independent or any other party, to do everything within its power to dissuade and prevent these radical elements and their supporters, from attacking your nation ever again.

THAT is what should be in a sane American's mind at that point, in October of 2001. We are not simpletons, who can't define the danger represented between Sunni extremists and Shi'ite extremists both seeking the annihilation first of Israel, then of Europe then of the U.S. and the rest of the free world, through continual, perpetual terrorism and a battle of attrition (the victor being the one side who has the will, fortitude and patience to continue the battle until the foe is defeated).

We also should not be simpletons, and suggest that the U.S. not go to war over control or stabilization of oil supplies (if not prices, which are not necessarily controlled by oil producers, for the record). Every time you turn on your stove, lights or car, or open your fridge, or put on some clothes, or take a hot shower, each of these things, in one way or another, is reliant on oil to some degree. If oil is not abundant, relatively cheap and accessible, our nation, America, including every liberal, conservative and every shade in between, would be up in arms. Our society would not function like anything we have been accustomed to in the last 100 years. Our society would grind to a halt. People would die, of heat, of cold, of illness, of a myriad of things, if for whatever reason, we were not able to secure the commodity of oil for all the uses and prices we have been accustomed to. That is a fact that impacts EVERYONE, from the newly born to the just about to die. So to point fingers at this president, or that secretary, when the U.S. has not had a solid policy of energy independence and efficiency, EVER, under ANY administration, is downright ludicrous.

We are smarter than that. We should fight for our way of life, and our comforts, and our security and our neighborhoods and lifestyles and our friends, families and neighbors. It is UnAmerican, if an AMERICAN is to live, speak or serve any other foreign interest ABOVE the interests of America. And you may not be comfortable with what it takes to get the oil, but you sure as heck are comfortable with the life that oil affords you. We can and should demand better energy policies and resources. But UNTIL THEN, we should be unified in our purpose and execution (an area the Bush administration gets a downright "F" in) in defense of our country, and those who are our allies in this battle. You shouldn't be ashamed it's over oil, that is one part of it, an important part. The greater issue is who controls that oil and what are their intentions vis-a-vis the U.S. We knew what Saddam thought of the U.S., we know what Iran thinks of us. There is no sound reason to think that our forces are poorly utilized or not focused on just the thing the country needs them for.

As for OBL, the more this war with extremism continues, the more the prosecutors of war understand their enemy. The combative enemy is not someone with limited technological and logistical assets in a remote cave on the Afghan/Pakistan border. That is the ideological spring, perhaps (but no more so than Tehran), and if that spring is somehow burned dry, there is nothing that will stop yet another fountain of extremism from developing elsewhere in the Islamic world.

If the U.S. decides to free itself of all fossil fuel consumption by the year 2030, the Middle East would soon revert to a mostly desert covered plain where people (all people) live in relative modesty and minimal subsistence. This will radicalize and energize the extreme base even more. So there isn't much the U.S. can do to neutralize this radical movement from an energy policy standpoint, because the minute the oil spigot runs dry, and the cash leaves the region for more fruitful plains, the impoverished and extremist elements in these nations will become even more violent and aggressive as the artificial power structure propped up by oil revenue and outside assistance will have vanished, and they will seek to control by force, what they were unable to control politically or financially.

If you care to research the origins and tenets of Wahabi/Salafi forms of the practice of Islam, you will see that these sects, very vocal and active in many Muslim nations in the Middle East, seek to transform the governance of their respective nations to the strict interpretation of and living life through the dictates of the Quran. There is a pious element within these dictates, but there is also an outright rejection of such things as politics, capitalism, economics and the like. There is no incentive or mandate to interact with the world that practices these historical and contemporary principles of civilization. There is a mandate to introduce and educate the masses in the tenets of the Quran (dawah) and then the call to various forms of jihad (a waging of protest/resistance/war in various forms- verbal, financial, physical) until those who do not believe are either eliminated or converted; those being the only two options).

Many can argue the nuances of Secretary Powell's presentation to the UN, or American policies towards Saddam, Osama, the Saudis, the Iranians and Israelis over the last 30-40 years. We have not done a good job of being a political superpower as a well as an economic and military superpower. We finally do have a policy of spreading democracy, at market costs, to an area of the world where the average citizen has absolutely no say in how they are governed. It has been a steep cost, but one we haven't paid up until now, content with propping up dictators who give us cheap oil. Now the price is being paid, and yes, our young men and women are dying, partly because they are backed by no reasonable war planning, partly because those they went in to liberate mistrust them to this day, and are not accustomed to a life of freedom and democracy, which is never smoothly transitioned into, not even in U.S. history.

To reiterate, Saddam's regime was actively looking to sabotage the UN/US, using proxies (potentially Al Qaeda, potentially other similar organizations more than willing to execute a 9/11 type attack just for notoriety's sake) and whatever other means at his disposal. Osama bin Laden is the ideological icon behind Islamic extremism, but the real fight we must wage is in the (overused but important phrase!) hearts and minds of the Muslim on the street, a fight that can't solely be won through negotiation and PSY-OPS. There is bloodshed in our action, but it is not a vain undertaking, nor should Americans consider it so. There is a cost to our freedoms and liberties. There is a cost to defend our citizenry from future, insidious, divisive attacks from within, and there is a cost to ensuring our nation functions as a free and powerful nation, one whose economy is still founded on fossil fuels. This is where we are today, and denying our situation will not solve our situation. And yes, I'm sure Bush cares, he may not care to listen to a few more people with a few more ideas, but he knows he's at the command during a very trying time in our history. He's not the brightest of politicians, but I don't think he is utterly indifferent to the dangers and difficulties faced by civilians and soldiers of America all over the world, including here at home. There will be others who will seek political gain by riding the "Unplug from Iraq" ticket all the way to Election Day. But that is not a reasonable or safe solution. There is a battlefront, the enemy is engaged, and any retreat or indecisiveness will embolden that enemy to commit even grander acts of barbarism. That isn't Republican fearmongering, it is the absolute fact, if one does care to delve into the mindset of those who have chosen to engage us in battle. There is no retreat for them until victory, and there is no value or limit on the lives required to achieve that victory. Facing such an enemy, unconventional and undeterred, requires Americans to think about that solid wall we live behind, and whether it's worth defending our American way of life, or capitulating and hoping for the best, knowing the worst is a greater likelihood. That is what is at stake for us, after the morning hours of September 11, 2001.