Do you really think Bush was entitled to attack Iraq and Afghanistan...?

Question

...although he found no mass-destruction weapon in Iraq and no Bin Ladens in Afganistan? I know this is a washed out question, but I'm still not sure that this war on terrorism stuff (in its current form) has proper ground.

Answer 1

it has very specific ground: get the oil.

the infrastructure of irac has not been rebuilt, but trust me, what has been built is good defences around the oil wells and a few american military bases around the borders...

it never was a war against terrorism, bush should be on the next stand to saddam hussein for crimes against the irakies, and making his nation one of the most reviled and corrupt in the world.

still got doubt??

Answer 2

First of all, the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq respectively are very different wars. They were justified under different rationales. The war in Afghanistan was supported by much of the world. The United States had been attacked by an organization with known leadership in Afghanistan and the Afghan (Taliban) government was intransigent in its response to legitmate demands to produce the terrorist leaders.

The war in Iraq was different. GW Bush made a great mistake (the reasons are too much to get into here). He failed to recognize that terrorism could not be defeated militarily. He (or a competent person in the position of U.S. president) should have been much more persuasive in his campaign against Saddam Hussein in late 2002 and early 2003.

Military strategies against terrorism amount to flailing. Terrorism cannot be defeated this way (illusions and popular notions notwithstanding). What Americans fail to understand is that when you put a person who has been given everything, including all the alcohol he can drink, for decades, and then put him in the Oval Office, he may not have the experience of adversity and personal unease that satisfactorily build character. Thus, on a day like 911, he may be frozen, unable to move for six minutes in a Sarasota Florida school (so terrorized was he!).

That eposode of paralysis has its implications. Terror and fear are the president's also! How can he not respond? The only answer is to elect someone who has experience with dealing with fears and adversity.

"Entitled?" The world system now depends on the United States to enforce the mandates of international peace and the requirements of the United Nations. Thus electing an incompetent can (and does) imperil the world.

As far as the "war on terror," we will see an entirely different political climate after the next BIG attack. It will change (make more conservative!!!) the American population, and the terrorists will unavoidably have their victory: Americans more hateful, more exclusive, more punitive, more zenophobic.

Answer 3

Afghanistan yes, Iraq no.
The war on terror is just a money laundering scheme set up by shadow government Republicans. They don't give a rat's *** about what happens in either country. All they want is a lot of money changing hands and a lot of accounting "goofs" and "misplaced" money. It's already been done once by the Republicans. Remember the Iran-Contra scandal? A shadow govenment made up of Republicans sold weapons to Iranians and used that money to fund the contra death squads in Nicaragua.

Answer 4

Had Bush handled the justifiable attack on Afghanistan (which had worldwide support) properly, Osama would be dead and Al Quaida would have been cut off at the knees. Instead he held back troops and resources needed to subdue Afghanistan and sent them unjustifiably into Iraq which is now dooming both efforts and has increased danger levels all over the world.

Bush, his regime and all his advisors (controllers) must be marginalized in the voting booth next Tuesday to end their rape of America and their abuse of all it should stand for.

Answer 5

"mymadsky" has it right.

Afghanistan, yes, because the Taliban government there harbored bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

Iraq, no, because there never were WMD's (and Bush The Lesser knew it), no links whatever to bin Laden or Al Qaeda ( and Bush The Lesser knew that, too).

3000 Americans dead over a pack of lies.

Bush is a war criminal.

Answer 6

No, no one is 'entitled' to attack another country. Nor is the war in Iraq about binladen & terrorism. binladen is Saudi, and there was no way Bush could jeopardize our dependence on Saudis for oil. He relied on conflating the events of 9-11 with his dislike of saddam hussein (who his father decided not to go after) in order to start the war with Irak. It also gave him the appearance of doing something about the 9-11 attacks.

Answer 7

Afghanistan was justified because the taliban was directly supporting Al Qaeda.

We still haven't heard a reasonable cause for Iraq, and the ones we do get keep changing.

Answer 8

Well he had congressional approval to use force. A lot of the people whinning now actually approved it.

This is actually a separate question from whether we should have attacked.

I would have perferred a declaration of war. The problem there is if they actually declared war then the trade center bombing would have been considered an act of war and the insurance companies might not have paid.

Answer 9

U.N. Secutiry Council Resolution 1441

Executive Order signed by William Jefferson Clinton stating that the official policy of the United States was regime change in Iraq.

You can hide your heads in the sand all you want, guy. The facts and truths are there.

Answer 10

Afganistan-Yes

Iraq-No