...wouldn't it have made more sense to spend it on Homeland Security and the original hunt for Al Qaeda (before they got in Iraq) than invading Iraq?
2006-12-11 06:12:33 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Seeing as Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq to begin with.
2006-12-11 06:12:50 · update #1
Sadly you do not seem to have a basic grasp on the "War on Terror" when we add the fact that this forum lacks the space for a sufficient answer you will understand, I must refrain and recommend that you study up on the topic, then return and post a more lucid question based on facts and not hyperbole. TYIA
2006-12-11 06:15:31 · answer #1 · answered by zombiefighter1988 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are right!!! We invaded Iraq because Bush had a vendetta against Saddam. Bush mislead people to believe that there was WMD in Iraq. Since Bush Sr told Saddam he had no problem with Saddam invading Kuwait. which started the whole dang reason to get oil, Al Qaeda wasn't even in Iraq, Saddam was having enough crap just trying to suppress the other Muslims in Iraq from taking power.
What you want to believe and what is real are 2 very different things
2006-12-11 06:32:20 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We were in the midst of taking down the top leaders of al qaeda when iraq posed a serious threat to us and to its own people, and blatantly funded and harbored known terrosists with the purpose of attacking the US.
The only reason all the news and politics are so against this war, is because it wasnt nearly as profitable as most wars are. Everyone knows, and anyone can tell you, that in war time, our economy is at its strongest. But not with this war. And because of that, its underfunded, and was never handled as swiftly and with the strong measures it should have been.
You cant just trickle in on these kinds of situtaions and people, it has to be a huge shock and awe from start to finish.. not just the initial attacks. But then again, when money didnt start pouring in from the war effort, it lost backing in washington.
We showed those damn iraqi's how to be a democratic state, and how to have a funacitonal government. but they refuse to be united and work together, they just want to fight and kill eachother and everyone else.
You can lead a horse to water....
2006-12-11 06:18:59 · answer #3 · answered by amosunknown 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would have made more sense to have let Kuwait become an Iraqi province back in 1990; it was none of our business to start with but almost no-one foresaw that the decade of controled oil markets we got from that battle would cost so much in so many other ways since.
2006-12-11 06:20:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Iraq was a major supporter of terror. There are multiple fronts in the war against Islamofascist terror.
2006-12-11 06:15:55 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Al Qaeda was in Iraq.
.
2006-12-11 06:15:12 · answer #6 · answered by MelBright 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No . Invade Iraq, get more money from the new oil, invade Iran, get more money from the new oil, invade saoudi arabia, get even more money from the new oil, invade north korea just for fun.
Watch that, Bin Ladden will move in those countries... :)
2006-12-11 06:15:55 · answer #7 · answered by eth1_hifi 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋