Iraq would have been next anyway. Bush just forgot to remember why Napolean and Hitler lost. If you are trying to eradicate a group; one, they know their land better than you do. Not sure ask the British what a Revolution looks like. Africa and America both explained that to them. Two, don't fight on two fronts. One will burrow in and make you crawl down their rabbit holes while the other is sneaking up behind you waiting to shoot you in the rear. I thought we learned that by letting Russia retreat during their winter while we picked off Hitlers men in Africa and Britain. Maybe if Bush's cabinet had spent more time studying military practices instead of making management deals with unstable or failing government economies we wouldn't be stuck in this never ending, someone elses argument, not really our business situation to begin with.
2006-10-24 06:13:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by sc_slic 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
The reason that George W, (and by George W I assume you mean congress who voted to allow George W to go into Iraq,) had to go into Iraq was because there was a percieved threat against our country. After 9/11 our government adopted a proactive policy on national security. The reasoning behind this is actually quite simple. When the terrorist attacked our great country on 9/11, we RESPONDED by going into afghanistan and eliminating the government who was responsible for allowing these mulitnational terrorist training camps to exist within their state. Although today the Taliban is no longer in power, our response did not PREVENT the 9/11 attacks from happening. Citizens of the U.S. would be pretty upset if we always waited for Americans to die before we did something. So, we now instead are using a proactive policy as opposed to the reactive one we used prior to 9/11. The common sense test on this is to ask these questions.
Q. Did our reaction to 9/11 prevent it from happening?
A. No.
Q. Since 9/11 and our subsequent change in tactics how many Americans CIVILLIANS have died on American soil at the hands of Islamic Extremists?
A. None
Sounds to me like its working. If you dont agree, consider this for a moment. If you were a drug dealer, and knew the police were going to raid your house on October 25 at 3pm, what would you do on October 24? You'd get the stuff out. Think the same with Nukes. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Also, Just because the world does not end tomorrow, just because more attacks don't happen on American soil, doesn't mean that it wasn't about to happen. The fact that it hasnt since, and you dont know about it, means its working.
2006-10-24 13:18:19
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
He couldn't handle and finish pronunciation for Afghanistan so he decided to move to an easier one, Iraq
2006-10-24 13:03:38
·
answer #3
·
answered by TheErrandBoy 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Attention deficit disorder, undoubtedly. It's so much kinder than any of the other possibilities like greed-for-oil or simple stupidity.
2006-10-24 13:07:59
·
answer #4
·
answered by murphy 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Ummm... Osama is hiding. It's hard to find some one hiding in a cave in Afghanistan.
2006-10-24 13:02:29
·
answer #5
·
answered by "I Want to Know Your Answer 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
Because he is afraid of fighting Al Qaida just as he was afraid of fighting the Viet Cong. When a chickenhawk wraps himself in our flag, he is crossdressing.
2006-10-24 13:02:27
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Because the F$#! liberals told him to get out! What good ideas they have.
2006-10-24 16:17:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Skidude 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
trying to impress daddy by gettin oil
2006-10-24 13:01:19
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
He's a multi-tasker!
2006-10-24 13:04:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Cinderella 4
·
1⤊
0⤋