Saudi Arabia?
Anyhow, we know now it wasn't Iraq. Small consolation after 3000 of us dead for no reason...
2006-11-10
00:38:08
·
20 answers
·
asked by
Emporer1
1
in
Politics & Government
➔ Military
Thanks. They did miss it. Bush exploited the mood of the moment. Paying back the guy who "threatened mah daddy" was just frosting on the cake of this publicity ploy for Bush.
2006-11-10
00:42:06 ·
update #1
TC, just chill. You didn't arrive at that conclusion before anybody here. Just chill.
2006-11-10
00:45:04 ·
update #2
I am not suggesting we in fact needed to invade anyone. I am just asking, if we determined to do that, who would have been a more worthwhile choice, in terms of really averting the spread of terrorism.
2006-11-10
00:46:17 ·
update #3
Good point Kupad.
It's often suggested FDR knew the japanese were going to bomb Pearl, and let it happen to facilitate our entry into war. --The theory being that nothing else had pulled the US out of The Great Depression, and nothing succeeds at hypoing business like war.
I think the case can be made that Bush needed something to hypo the economy after Clinton's brilliant numbers had steeply declined. --And, naturally, to bag a few billion in war profit for Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, et al.
2006-11-10
00:49:33 ·
update #4
namsaev, reenter data.
2006-11-10
00:50:57 ·
update #5
A lot of interesting answers here...I agree with you that its a small consolation with the 3000 dead for nothing, just put that on our tab with the middle east.
The Taliban is all over the middle east! Most likely the majority being in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and we didn't to there cuz they are supposed to be our friends. (Whatever) Iraq was most certinly NOT the hub of the Taliban
Before we ran off to war (Due to Bushes LIES!) we should have demanded a full scale investigation - with an outside party. Meaning not in our own government!
Had we really, truly, investigated and not allowed Bush to manipulate us - THIS particular war might never have happened. We may still have 3000 dead soldiers, but for TRUTH and not LIES would make a difference to me.
The illusion that somehow we are 'more safe' because of this war is so bizarre!! To think THAT perpetuates Bush's Lies even further. I pity the people who believe that this war make us look stronger, or serves as some kind of shield against more attacks.
We have lost the respect of most of the world with our actions! That matters to me as well.
We are in to deep now to un-do Bush and his team of evil...Hopefully, now that the democrats have control of the House & Senate we can begin to turn their disaster around and in that gain some respect, support and securtiy back.
2006-11-10 10:51:13
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
We DID invade Afghanistan in October 2001. Afghanistan was used by Al Quaida as a base of operation to train and organize attacks on the USA and others. Our invasion drove Bin Laden's Taliban allies from power and forced Al Quaida out of Afghanistan. However, due to the Administration's desire to divert resources for the upcoming invasion of Iraq Bin Laden was allowed to escape. So I do agree that Iraq has zero to do with 911. The Saudi goverment is opposed to Al Quaida. More importantly, Saudi Arabia is the site of Mecca Islam's holiest shrine. If we invaded SA the ENTIRE Islamic world both friend and foe would have declared war on us.
Thanks for reading,
Philip L
2/2 Cav Desert storm vet.
2006-11-10 03:53:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
0⤋
I dunno...first of all, I agree with whoever said "we shoulda went for the trucks heading into Syria." That would have quite possibly been the end of it. But as soldiers and marines over there now might tell you, that it's now apparent that things go way beyond WMD's- which we know at least were some -but the enemy is real and deadly. So, I believe we went TO the right place, but the timing and objective seem to have misfired in the outset. We really need to push and shove our way out now, perhaps not next week, but soon. Our enemies aren't in a fixed position in this war...
I have been in that theatre, but even then, we could more often SEE them than our troops can now.
Regardless if going into Iraq is questionable vs. another viable target, we need to take the fight to them, and decrease the chances of it coming here. Lest you find out how fast you would come to appreciate your right to bear arms.
Our troops know full well what to do to our enemies, as the saying goes...Marines keep heaven packed with fresh souls for God.
I don't want our soldiers and marines dead, I want them to stay together, send heaven all the fresh souls of bad guys they can, and come home for a beer when its over.
The fight must stay where the terrorists are.
2006-11-10 02:20:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by Diadem 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
First a private investigator should have led the investigation because no matter what you believe the government should always be considered a suspect untill it is ruled out. Unfortunately that step was skipped and now there is evidence that points toward the government, for example telling NORAD to stand down. It was a False Flag operation.
False Flag Operations - are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations, which are designed to appear as if they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own.
If you think this is impossible look up Operation Northwoods.
2006-11-10 10:46:44
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ron Paul Republican 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
What biblical beast of burden convinced you we went into Iraq to avenge 9/11?
You want to know the REAL reason there are about 3000 dead? It's because there are a bunch of extremists that DON'T like the form of government Iraq has now.
We could have left the day we caught Saddam and that would have accomplished what we went there for?
By your logic why did we invade Europe first during WWII? It was Japan that bombed Pearl Harbor.
2006-11-10 00:49:16
·
answer #5
·
answered by namsaev 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Well, considering that increasing amounts of evidence is pointing towards it being done by an organisation within the USA, then this is a very hard question to answer.
I would like to say that the blame lies with the Illuminate, but I will probably get lots of "thumbs down" for this.
Either way, I remain convinced that the idea originated within the USA, and was not conceived by Muslims, but was engineered in such a way that the Muslims who committed the act genuinly believed that the idea was conceived by a Muslim extremist cell.
2006-11-10 00:41:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by shoby_shoby2003 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
The question is not who carried out 911.
The US has all the intel and surveillance equipment in the world.
The real question is.
Who let 911 happen?
That person, group or country then should be held liable.
2006-11-10 00:46:13
·
answer #7
·
answered by Low Pro 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The whole Middle East.
Try the Saudies
2006-11-10 00:43:03
·
answer #8
·
answered by Reported for insulting my belief 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
we are advised that maximum Talibanians are supporters of Al Quaida. on the time of 9-11, Al Quaida grew to become into resident in Afghanistan and grew to become into secure via the Taliban. If the Taliban regain administration of Afghanistan, Al Quaida will return to Afghanistan with the aid of fact their latest cave accommodations in Pakistan are actually not comfortable.
2016-10-03 11:57:09
·
answer #9
·
answered by milak 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bush was going to invade Iraq regardless. The plan was cooked up by Bush, Rumsfeld and Chaney soon after the election that Bush stole in 2000.
2006-11-10 00:48:09
·
answer #10
·
answered by Jabberwock 5
·
3⤊
2⤋