Would you still support Bush and the mission if he said he didn't care about Osama bin Laden any more. No flaming, please, people are ENTITLED to their opinions.
2006-09-12 05:03:11 · 18 answers · asked by DEP 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I thought he was the main point to the 'war on terror'...
2006-09-12 05:04:45 · answer #1 · answered by thomas p 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The War on Terror is a sham, as far as I'm concerned. Osama if indeed he was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, should have or would have been caught, but that is not the case. I do remember Bush saying "I'm really not that worried about him", so to me he implied that the one who was the leader of the 9/11 attacks is not important. The focus changed to the Iraq War, one that I served in for 2 years. This war was started on false information, as of now there is no plan except "stay the course", what is "stay the course". The course so far has been an inflated National Debt, Iraq in the brink of cival war, 2500+ Soldiers dead, but if that's the "stay the course" plan, then I won't support it.
More importantly, this so called war on terror that is being slaped in the face of the American public daily. Why is the war on terror so forcefully shoved down Americans throats yet Bush and his administration continue to deny the shambles that are our Borders. The borders, nor the shorelines or docks are well secured, monitored or patrolled. Terrorists that we so much fear can at any time cross into the US. War on Terror with open borders, come on.
Not only are there Islamic Fanatics who would wish death and destruction upon us, but many other factions non-islamic. Capturing Osama will not end terrorism, but he should be brought to justice for what he did.
2006-09-12 05:45:59 · answer #2 · answered by Enterrador 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Osama is just one person. Whether we kill him or not, the war against terrorism continues unabated. He was never the whole point of the war on terror. I don't know how you ever arrived at that conclusion, but it was not from actually reading all the speeches and reasons behind our going to Afghanistan and Iraq.
The war is a much broader one, against all the radical Islamists and the countries that support them. Bush has been saying this constantly for about 5 years now, so the least you could do is actually pay attention to what you think you're criticizing.
But we have gone after the rest of the leaders of al Qaeda, and have seriously harmed their organization. But, since you must not have been paying attention, al Qaeda is in many, many countries, and they are only one of many, many idiot jihadist groups. We are fighting all of them.
2006-09-12 05:21:10 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Osama Bin Laden is not the only terrorist leader. I believe that there are terrorist everywhere, and unfortunately, they all hate the United States. I believe that this war, although costly, is necessary. We need to stop terrorism now. It will only escalate if left.unchecked. I know the "popular" opinion is to end the war. After all, what did war every accomplish...except to get rid of slavery, nazism, communism, facism, etc.
2006-09-12 05:10:53 · answer #4 · answered by tmreiber 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
properly considering that Bush has surely stated hes no longer the guy I dont help any action. Its sparkling he replaced right into a boogy guy decrease than the mattress and not something extra. And thus far as international regulation is going i think of thats interior the technique of having correction. With Rumsfeld as a international offender besides as many CIA operatives the international community is giving a sparkling sign that kidnapping is beside the point. needless to say you comprehend the astonishing answer as does every person which could think of. ought to we arise with the money for the political injury carried out if we circulate the Saudis and the actual answer is already written into history.
2016-11-07 04:20:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Getting Osama, Al Qaeda and the Taliban is the ONLY Bush Administration conflict I agree with.
2006-09-12 05:07:16 · answer #6 · answered by pickle head 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would for several reasons...just getting OBL wouldn't solve anything anyway....a new guy would take over in a matter of hours anyway...we have to take on the group as a whole....I think the only thing catching OBl would do is give the americans something to cheer about...."WE GOT OBL" but as far as the war it would only make them more pissed off and OBL would be a good marter for them...focus on the whole, not just the leader.
2006-09-12 05:23:25 · answer #7 · answered by yetti 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The war in Iraq has been a costly futile failure. We should have concentrated on going after Bin Laden in the first place.
2006-09-12 05:09:00 · answer #8 · answered by notyou311 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't support Bush now. It's obvious that he already doesn't care about finding Osama. How hard could it really be to find a 6'tall140lb. Arab who is on dialysis. Have you ever seen a dialysis machine? Not easy to hide.
2006-09-12 05:08:05 · answer #9 · answered by T S 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I support going after Osama, I hope that doesn't mean I have to support Bush...unless he was still looking for Osama, which he isn't, but I OWULD support him if he were. Why does he make it so hard to support him?
2006-09-12 05:19:57 · answer #10 · answered by hichefheidi 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terror is the primary mission for the world on Terror. killing Osama is NOT going to stop it.
Yes i would support it. Continue the war on terror. Stop wasting money to focus solely on one man.
2006-09-12 05:14:45 · answer #11 · answered by Q-burt 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋