2006-12-16 01:25:12 · 9 answers · asked by SAVISIVA 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Because Bush has since then stated that he "doesn't know or care where Osama(you know, the head terrorist) is" and gave up looking for him even before he lied to the world so that he could invade Iraq.
2006-12-16 01:55:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not the "war on terror" we criticize, it is how it's being executed. I don't know anyone who is opposed to getting the terrorists. Why did we send under 20,000 troops into Afghanistan to get bin Laden, who attacked us, and almost 150,000 troops to get Saddam, who was no threat to us? Why is Pakistan, where bin Laden is rumored to be hiding with the hesitant blessings of the Pakistani government, "off the table"? If we were truly interested in executing a "war on terror", why are we creating more terrorists in Iraq instead of attacking them where they already exist?
Afghanistan was done with full support of the international community and almost unanimous support of the American people. Yet, instead of going in and getting the job done, we turned the job over to local warlords to finish.
It's a matter of priorities. I don't know one American who won't rejoice when bin Laden is captured or killed. I do know many, however, who mourn the daily loss of innocent life, on both sides, that occurs in Iraq as a result of our misguided policy.
2006-12-16 09:44:34 · answer #2 · answered by john_stolworthy 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How many innocent people has Bush's "war on terra" killed and maimed for life now? Including American civilians, Iraqi civilians, and Afghani civilians? Exactly what is the connection between the former Iraqi government and the attack on the World Trade Center? How many extra billions of dollars of war debt, poor economy, and future taxes are you willing to deal with for the rest of your life in order to further this mistaken agenda?
2006-12-16 09:42:39 · answer #3 · answered by mattzcoz 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what happened to the us since world war 2? the Japanese bombed pearl harbor and we were signing up to fight. terrorists attack us in the continental u.s. and we whimper and wring our hands and decry our government for taking the war to them. yes there are other factors involved in foreign policy but the u.n. will not take any decisive action. i proudly served my country and would do so again. soldiers don't get to choose war or policy they fight the battles they are told to fight. and lest you forget the WTC was not a last step it was the beginning. if we don't find a way to put an end to terrorism it will spread like cancer.
2006-12-16 09:40:11 · answer #4 · answered by BuddhaDaddy 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only George can say what his actual motives were in attacking Iraq, but his motives had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11 or WMDs. He used those excuses simply as a 'means to an end'. In other words, he lied to us, and that puts him in the same sh!t bucket as Clinton.
2006-12-16 10:34:22 · answer #5 · answered by tom l 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its how he has decided to attack the enemy. for example, he egged them on, gave saddam a 24 heads up well attack, ilegal wiretaps, etc. i support the afghan war, and i support the troops in both countries, but the war in iraq is fairly unjust. iraq has become unstable. at least w/ saddam there was stability and control.
2006-12-16 09:50:25 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because the U.S. media hasn't been able to control Bush as they do congressmen and senators.
2006-12-16 09:34:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because of how he has tried to accomplish this.....it's not just Bush, but the administartion too.
2006-12-16 09:30:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In all fairness, we all need critics. Criticism tells us we are
doing the right thing.
MERRY CHRISTMAS and have a nice day.
Thank you very much, while you're up!!!
2006-12-16 09:33:20 · answer #9 · answered by producer_vortex 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋