I always hear people complaining about George Bush's actions in this war, well, what actions would you have taken if you were president and the trade centers were bombed while you were in office. Would you sit back and let them bomb more buildings, or would you have fought back like Bush did?
Just wondering!! I myself would have fought back. But that is just me. What about you?
2006-09-04 07:36:28 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm sorry love lorn, maybe you mis read my question. I just wanted your opinion on what you would do. I didn't type this in a rage so don't tell me to chill out. Re-read the question and answer reasonably.
2006-09-04 07:42:00 · update #1
They attacked our civillians. Many innocent people died while minding their own business. And i know someone is going to say innocent troops are getting killed who are fighting. I understand that, and they understood that when they went to fight. My cousin is there now and we are proud of him and he is very brave. I am sorry if you don't agree with me, but i am asking your opinion, not for you to critsize me. Thank you for the patient people out there putting up with me.
2006-09-04 07:47:33 · update #2
I would have fought the terrorists just like Bush did. Take the fight to their turf. You can't negotiate with a people who are brain washed that hate everything about you and your culture. Islamofacists don't believe in diversity and getting along. Just ask Israel.
2006-09-04 07:43:51 · answer #1 · answered by ANDREW L 3 · 2⤊ 7⤋
When the weapons inspectors came back from Iraq and attended hearing in Congress, they told the world that they found no WMD and they found no material in Iraq that could realistically sustain production of WMD. Then Bush got intelligence from the CIA that there were WMD's. I think Bush should have said..."whoaa...there is a discrepancy here...lets find out why this is before we make a decision about war." That would have led to an investigation similar to the 9/11 Commission hearings and would have led us to a more intelligent debate about wether to go to war or not. And we probably would not have, and would have started a real war on terror.
But that is fantasy, as Bush doesn't have the where with all to do that kind of thinking.
2006-09-04 22:39:00 · answer #2 · answered by Just Me 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Bush fought back how? Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Those responsible are still at large. Imagine that, the worlds biggest armed force unable to stop one camel jockey gang. So, since our intelligence was so on the money, there were going to be more airplane attacks? Oh, Bush fired those bad intelligence guys? Or anybody? Where are you getting the idea that we are fighting back? If fighting back is your aim, you best not seek to immitate GWB because he has admitted he doesn't care where the mastermind is. His only care is to limit your ability to fight back, notice the cost of fuel lately? That cost is not going to pay for the fight against terrorism, so how could we even imagine that we are winning?
2006-09-04 15:15:11 · answer #3 · answered by Marcus R. 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Well, first off, I would not have attacked my own country. Then there would be no neccesity for war.
If there had been a legitimate attack, and it was Osama, I would have sent the Special Forces in to take him out...and not just stop looking for him.
Iraq was completely unneccesary, and had nothing to do with 9/11 in any way shape or form. And since we knew very well that there were no WMD, there wasn't even a vague possible threat.
Bush has not stopped anything. He hasn't caught anyone. Osama is still free, and Bush says he's not really interested in capturing him. Saddam is still free (oh, you idiots...don't say Conspiracy Theory...just look at the freakin pictures! Before his capture, he had perfect teeth and an overbite. The man they captured had terrible, crooked, yellow, rotten teeth and a large underbite), and there is obviously no effort to catch him!
Who have they stopped? Al'Quaida is hanging out in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, yet we consider Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to be allies, while we consider Iraq to be the enemy, but they did nothing!
2006-09-04 14:53:25 · answer #4 · answered by corwynwulfhund 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He did fight back by attacking in Afghanastan, and he should have stayed there and not attack Iraq, but kept an eye on them, if he spent as much money on finding Osama bin Laden as he has spent on this war $260 billion,,,maybe he would have caught him and others like him. He could have still done what he wanted to do Sadaam, without causing the civilian bloodshed. I undertand him wanting to bring and fight the terroists in another country, and not fighting them in or country, but in effect he has created thousands more bin Ladens in the Middle East, and this war on terrorism is never ending, generation after generation will be attacking us until one of us..........pushes that "button" to let all hell break loose. We are doomed I see no relief in sight, our country is at the beginning of the end. I feel so sorry for my grandchildren,,and what we left for them to inherit....
2006-09-04 14:53:10 · answer #5 · answered by notfrompenn 1 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Study History, in order to be able to understand the diverse geopolitical significance of the country he serves as a president...
2006-09-04 14:54:19 · answer #6 · answered by supersonikid 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have continued to wage the war on the real terrorists and not be distracted by the empire building in Iraq on behalf of corporate interests. Did Iraq have a terror problem before we invaded? Did they have WMDs? Were they an imminent threat?
2006-09-04 14:39:01 · answer #7 · answered by Joe D 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I would have gone after bin ladin, not saddam. I would have asked our so called "allies" the Saudis to account for the fact that most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia.
2006-09-04 14:49:01 · answer #8 · answered by mrsmicky 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋
well firstly i wouldn't kill any women and children.the best way to get rid of bin laden and he's entourage was to spend more money on government intelligence instead of spending it on a war that aside from getting rid of Saddam we are still unclear why we went to Iraq.the intelligence would lead this country into finding bin laden and we could destroy them without killing civilians.thats what could have been done to stop bin laden and his group.
2006-09-04 15:04:53 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
YOUR WHOLE POSITION IS WRONG...ITS MY OPINION THAT HE WAS PART OF 9/11 ..you are seeing him has someone who reacts...I see him as a co-conspirator.There are so many unanswered questions surrounding this 9/11 tragedy, and so much fricking money being made by it..how in the hell can anyone trust this guy....look at this mans face next time you see him...take a good long look..you will see it...its an evil lie in the flesh.
2006-09-04 14:42:03 · answer #10 · answered by dstr 6 · 7⤊ 2⤋
I would have started bombing the middle east, I would not have used ground forces like we did in Iraq. I would have implemented a emergency biofuels act and stimulated production of the 2 trillion barrles of oil they lies in the shale geophysical formations under the rocky mountains therefore insuring our fuel supply. Then I would finish the bombing job in the middle east. I would do it more like ww2 with lots of bombing, that worked better, I would have definitly beefed up homeland security at the borders sooner, that has been a big failure of Bush's.
2006-09-04 14:51:15 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋