Why are US troops in Iraq, to stop evil terrorists that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9-11?

Question

if the evil terrorists that follow Osama bin Laden, are in Pakistan with their leader, why don't the Bush neoconservatives send US troops to topple President Pervez Musharraf and take over their Islamic government?

Answer 1

Great question and it seems as if a lot of Americans don't realise that Iraq was a problem that they and us Brits created through supporting Saddam through the Cold War.
We took the side of the Iraq against the Russian supported Iran. Also, we put and supported the Taliban into control of Afghanistan, in order to get the Russians out.
We in the West will support anybody as long as we have control of the oil.
When the little children that we have nurtured and provided for grow and don't play ball, or maybe we don't need them anymore, 'cos we are buddies with the Russians, we start wars to try and get more agreeable people in power.
We also funded Osama Bin Laden.
We are now paying the price of bad investment.

Answer 2

Governments throughout history have used "terrorist attacks" to bend the will of the people. The US has already did it with pearl harbor (check US archives for declassified documents showing that our government new about it and aloud it to happen). Who else could of made NORAD stand down? 19 guys living in caves can't do that! Unfortunately, with a little research, everyone can see for themselves what the plan is. A New World Order. It's being vigorously established right now, right in front of the world. People are beginning to wake - more need to. I would hate to have a pandemic like the president has been promising magically happen this Nov.

Answer 3

We are not in Iraq because of 9/11. We are in Afghanistan and we have initiatives all over the world. I know they are working it, I don't need to know where they are at. Pakistan plays a very delicate role of being an allies to us and also the the terrorist in Pakistan.

Answer 4

it is someone-friendly false impression. If Al Qaeda worked like a significant government or something, perhaps this analogy may be suitable, whether it is not. Al Qaeda operates on a "cellular" point, so operatives and small action communities purely decide for a message from somebody of their chain of command to activate, they are generally self-funded, by utilising distinctive characteristic of being the two funded by utilising some valid corporation activities the place income are funneled in the direction of cellular activites OR by illict ability. the two way, it is how the Madrid and London operators have been functioning. the main suitable thank you to envision it, is like Mc Donalds or 7-11 , the corporate headquarters might get nuked and the CEO ought to get killed, yet that would not fairly influence the franchise proprietor in Chicago, manhattan or l. a.. it would quickly disrupt or disable their communications , and the "maximum suitable case" may be to possibly even shrink off a cellular from it is command/administration, yet no longer something prevents a "status order" to activate or disband the cellular in one among those case, besides. because it stands there have been some public terrorist incidents (Anthrax in FL,CT,long island,DC & NJ, the thwarted aerosolized cyanide/sarin in NYC, The London bombers carried out countless helpful "dry runs" interior the long island subways - unbeknownst to fatherland protection, and maximum those days the botched Ricin attack in Las Vegas.) and fatherland protection has in certainty caught up with countless different communities or persons whom would or will possibly no longer have been making plans extreme assaults upon US landmarks or inhabitants centers.

Answer 5

You are building way to much into this war thing.

Just think of it as a job. Most of America lost their jobs after the 2000 election. Some have relocated to a different job but most didn't.

War is a big employer. One million troops need 4 million boots 8 million socks 4 million pair of underware.

It is not all bullets and bombs. It is millions of women working in sweat shops sewing uniforms.

Go big Red Go

Answer 6

Exactly , why ??
Nut case have you been in a hole for the last few years . Don't you know that Bush even said that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 . There were never any terrorist in Iraq till we invaded and now the country is full of them . If we had went into Afghanistan with a full force we could have cleaned them all out , with less deaths .

Answer 7

Since the humor didn't work try this.

Read up on issues before you post on them. The Iraq war was the result of enforcing United Nations resolutions. How you manage to connect this to 9-11 is beyond me. More liberal disinformation. I'm not sure but I don't think I have ever seen anyone as consistently wrong on here and that is some accomplishment.

Answer 8

I recall the reason for us not going after Osama in Pakistan is because Pakistan is a sovereign nation, or some such crap. The funny thing is, that didn't stop the military from blowing up that villiage in Pakistan a few months back.

Answer 9

I don't know, why did the U.S. send troops to Europe during WWII? Hitler didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, but I doubt you would argue that he should have been left alone and allowed to torture the Jewish communities like he did. Sadam was a threat to the rest of the world just as Hitler was, and his defiance of the UN orders for over a decade allowed thousands upon thousands of innocent people to die in Iraq.

Answer 10

I heard it's because Bush just wanted Iraq's oil and used 9/11 as an excuse to invade.