i say yes. shameful.
2006-09-27 04:37:02 · 15 answers · asked by david c 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
YES!
2006-09-27 04:38:44 · answer #1 · answered by Olivier P 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say 'Yes' to the focussing and "NO" to the decision to attack Iraq. I will explain:
- had the US moved into Afghanistan earlier and quicker than they did, they would have definitely got him then.
- Iraq was an unfortunate prediction gone wrong and has no connection to Bin laden. We all thought it was about getting in, taking Saddam out of power, replacing him with a democratic government and leaving/or setting up base, but it all turned bad. Now pulling out would be devastation and staying would be devastation. Right now Bush, the Iraqi govt, UN and others need good advise not criticism I think.
Am sorry about the people that are having to die (sons, daughters, husbands, wives of good iraqi, american, british and other foreign people) due to this meaningless bloody war.
2006-09-27 04:53:56 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not at all! Bin Laden is jumping back and forth from Afghanistan to Pakistan! We were invited into Afghanistan so we can have military resources there. Pakistan is another story and Bin Laden knows this. Now to say we don't have small special force teams in Pakistan would be ignorant!
2006-09-27 04:43:52 · answer #3 · answered by jamie s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ah yeah! They only focus we should have had after 9/11 is Usama Bin Laden. He is the terrorist responsible for all of the terror attacks in the ten years previous to 9/11. NOT SADDAM HUSSEIN! I don't think anyone has the right to blame Clinton for any of this. Did he lie to the American people about why we were invading Iraq? Does Iraq have ANYTHING to do with Usama in AFGHANISTAN? It is not our job to liberate every group of people suffering on this earth from their corrupt, sick leaders. Our job is to protect the American people and so far G.W. has NOT done that. So people need to stop bashing Clinton, and blame the real person at fault.
2006-09-27 06:16:18 · answer #4 · answered by sicilia 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He made a chickenhawk effort to capture OBL when we were only in Afghanistan. All this fraternity-punk Heir Guardsmen knows about the military is two weeks in the summer, one weekend a month. Besides, if he had caught OBL, Americans might think that the war was over and have no reason to elect these flag-waving, chest-thumping Republican baboons.
2006-09-27 04:45:38 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I can't believe that the US or any other country for that matter, is seriously looking for that man. He even has a bounty of 10 million (or something like that) on his head, and yet nothing. I believe if the US wanted him found, he would of been found and brought to trial many many years ago. If they, as reported have heard (rumor has it is guess ????) that he is on the Afghanistan border, why do they not send in the troops or the special forces or a contract person, and find him? This is getting ridiculous. And it sounds even worse.
2006-09-27 04:53:34 · answer #6 · answered by loisa sbral 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The liberals would like you to think "yes".
But the truth is contrary to that.
First, he's hiding in Pakistan, not Afghanistan.
Second, the Iraq troops came from the US, not Afghanistan. We have a large enough military to handle both countries, albeit just barely.
2006-09-27 04:44:38 · answer #7 · answered by Ricky T 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush lost concentration because he cared little for Bin weighted down. once Bin weighted down grew to change into too problematic to locate, Bush needed extra tangible effects. It changed into undesirable sufficient that Afghanistan had few hi profile aims previous Bora Bora. So why no longer flow after the guy he disliked from day one. particular Saddam turned right into a real piece of garbage yet extra knew that eliminating him ought to convey chaos to the area. in spite of the indisputable fact that, Saddam provided a hi profile tangible effect that Bush Jr. ought to cling his legacy on. In his hubris and shortage of expertise, Bush Jr. set the wheels in action and we are paying the price. For extra ideal or worse, his legacy is now fairly solid.
2016-11-24 22:25:50 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And I read your book, "what if's" and now I to have 20/20 hindsight. And if we didn't go into Iraq and still didn't get Bin Laden, what if, then?
2006-09-27 04:44:19 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bin Laden is just a pawn used by the U.S. government in order to cover up what's REALLY going on!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm
It's NOT about a "war on terror" or "fighting for freedom"!...
2006-09-27 05:59:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think if we were serious about capturing him, he'd be in a cell by now.
2006-09-27 04:40:39 · answer #11 · answered by Gene Rocks! 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋