The twin Towers came down on September 11. On 18 september Matin Amis Wrote an article on terrorism in the USA hoping that the actions of the USA would not be esculatory. Yesterday he wrote an article the age of horrorism. Please read them in the guardian unlimited before answering. Was "weapons of mass destruction" an excuse built on national paranoia? Are the Americans still suffering from mass delusion? If so are we following a nation that is paranoid psychotic and suffering from delusions of grandure. Is the average American just a Mad Man with a Gun.
2006-09-11 11:40:04 · 13 answers · asked by Ashley K 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
The twin Towers came down on September 11. On 18 september Matin Amis Wrote an article on terrorism in the USA hoping that the actions of the USA would not be esculatory. Yesterday he wrote an article the age of horrorism. Please read them in the guardian unlimited before answering. Was "weapons of mass destruction" an excuse built on national paranoia? Are the Americans still suffering from mass delusion? If so are we following a nation that is paranoid psychotic and suffering from delusions of grandure. Is the average American just a Mad Man with a Gun. Cathartic is to carry out a Healing Action. They fistly went into Afganistan but didnt catch Osama Bin Laden.
2006-09-11 12:13:22 · update #1
NO , G.W.BUSH DID IT FOR HIS DADDY
2006-09-11 11:42:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The atrocity of 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein. That Bush tried to link it to Saddam was a bad judgement call on his behalf - we all know who really did it.
But, the world is a better place without Saddam in power. I believe they are still documenting the bodies from new mass graves being discovered all the time. Something like 500,000 of his own citizens have disappeared at the hands of his cruelty, and now they are being found.
Also, Saddam started the Iran / Iraq war, did he not? Who is crying for the dead in that war? Did 1Million people really perish?
And who crys for the dead in Kuwait. I heard Saddam's solders were dumping Kuwaiti babies out of the incubators and onto the floor, whilst the medical equipment was being shipped back to Iraq. How many died in this conflict? And Saddam never conceded that Kuwait did not belong to him. He just got out. We should have had tanks rolling through the streets of Baghdad, not letting him get off easily.
So, I'm told reliably by my best friend Saddam DID HAVE chemical weapons etc, as they were discovered whilst freeing Kuwait the first time. But does he / did he have them recently? Who cares.
The world is a better place without Saddam in power.
2006-09-11 18:01:57 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In my opinion, "weapons of mass destruction" was only an excuse to finish off what his, G.W. Bush's, dad had started 15 years ago.
I do not understand why Bush is spending so much money, manpower and lives of the soldiers on a "personal war" against Iraq and Saddam when he should be focusing on finding the key people responsible for the 9/11 massacre.
2006-09-11 11:54:25 · answer #3 · answered by RAG 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Strange, I thought that the twin towers were a target of Osama Bin Laden of Afghanistan, and nothing to do with Saddam Hussein of Iraq!!!
Some of us in the UK have just watched 'The Path To 9/11', and Saddam Hussein and Iraq were not mentioned at all!!!
2006-09-11 11:49:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
If we would have caught Bin Laden in Afghanistan, there would be no reason for us to have gone into Iraq, but that wasn't Bush's plan. He was using the 9/11 attacks and Afghanistan as a walk-in to Iraq.
2006-09-11 12:20:16 · answer #5 · answered by Nolyn Hill 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was Afghanistan they invaded after the twin towers not Iraq.
2006-09-11 11:51:02 · answer #6 · answered by KIRSTEN F 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. 9/11 was a terrible event but it was then used to whoop up jingoism and xenophobia for GWB's own agenda.
2006-09-11 11:57:59 · answer #7 · answered by little_jo_uk 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You may be right. To invade one country was bad but to invade two really borders on insanity. If a nation could be said to be insane, then the US is.
2006-09-11 13:41:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Who knows? Maybe the US is practising empire-building.
2006-09-11 11:44:15 · answer #9 · answered by Simon K 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No they didnt need to invade, they should have just NUKED it!
2006-09-11 11:43:33 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
whats cathartic?
2006-09-11 11:47:42 · answer #11 · answered by Alfred E. Newman 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋