I would have gone after the culprit, Osama, when he was readily available. I wouldn't have waited a month after he left Iraq to decide to invade it. It would have been short, sweet and to the point. I wouldn't have used 9-11 as a premise to go after someone that had nothing to do with it.
Then if I choose to go after Hussein, it would have been for good reason, because he was a cruel sadistic man who got off of watching innocent people die simply because he had that power (that the US govt gave him in the first place).
2006-12-31 02:01:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by FaerieWhings 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Iraq is Vietnam II, so there is no "if you feel that we have handled the war so poorly" to it. If the U.S. wanted Saddam removed, then remove him the same way you removed all those regimes in Central America over the past several decades...clandestinely (taking out the sons first). Obviously removing Saddam was only a "side goal" with the real goal to get a significant military presence in Eurasia for the purpose of stifling any challenge to our global supremecy. Even though we have the best military in the world and was able to kick the fourth largest army in the world out of Kuwait in TWO MONTHS in 1991, we are getting our butts kicked in Afghanistan by a rag-tag militia who have no air force, no navy, no cruise missiles, no tanks, no drones, no helmets, no uniforms, no canteens, no night vision goggles, NO NOTHING!! WHY? Because we know these people had nothing to do with 9/11 and we just want to build and protect the pipeline of Unocal (whose board is where we found...Hamid Karzai). China is selling their bicycles and buying autos. We cannot let their significant increase in demand for oil drain the world supply and adversely affect the U.S. Why do think Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire? It was because he became outspoken (according to Sports Illustrated magazine) about how "bogus" the war was. He was less than happy about giving up his NFL career to be the oil police. Tommy Franks tells us in Senator Bob Graham's book "Intelligence Matters" that "this is not a war on terror". So, get informed people!!! Your government is killing us!!!
2006-12-31 10:18:43
·
answer #2
·
answered by protocols 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
Mrs. President. I like the sound of that.
I would concentrate on the real enemies - Afghanistan was a good start, but then our current administration got sidetracked. Iran, North Korea, probably Saudia Arabia, Syria. I don't mean a military solution necessarily. Anything is on the table diplomatically, unless we have reliable intelligence that these countries were involved in funding terrorist activities.
2006-12-31 09:55:22
·
answer #3
·
answered by harrisnish 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would have gone in, leveled the whole place from Egypt, down the whole Saudi penninsula, and across to the other side of Iran. Truly, I would have taken over the whole middle east. Not taken control and helped to rebuild, I mean "Welcome to the New Middle Eastern Commonwealth of the United States."
If you're wondering how you get China, Russia, the rest of the world, and Americans to support this, that is simple. Start selling oil to the rest of the world under $30 a barrel and get gas here in the states back down to $1 a gallon, and everyone would give full support.
Would this work, I don't know. But, I am willing to bet everything that my last fact about support being based on the price of oil is dead on.
2006-12-31 10:13:46
·
answer #4
·
answered by ? 5
·
1⤊
1⤋
Ri, wake up. Saddam financed terrorists openly and brtagged of it. Those terrorists have killed Americans Achille Laurel much? Add in the GW1 and his spitting in the face of sanctions and we were actually overdue to go in and correct things.
I would have had the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan go in and kill all Taliban along with my troops. When I was gonna go into Iraq, it would have looked like Attila had come for a visit when I was done. I would have used airpower etc to so crush those 2 places that in 200 years their ancestors would wake up screaming from the nightmares because of me. If we left anyone alive to be an ancestor.
2006-12-31 15:18:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by netnazivictim 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
well, i would have put the screws on afghanistan, all our troops would have been there hunting down bin laden and his merry men. The taliban would have been totally destroyed, most of them hunted down and shot like dogs, the leaders publically hung for abetting binladen. We could have done this in a very short time with the amount of manpower and weaponry we've invested in iraq. If we had stayed the course and taken bin laden and changed the regime in afghanistan in short order, with excessive and overwhelming force, i think that most other dictators and despots would have thought very hard about doing anything to antagonize us. As it is, we look like fools, we didnt catch the man responsible for attacking us, and now we have been made to look like idiots in iraq.
2006-12-31 09:57:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by tomhale138 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The only way I'd send troops into Iraq in the first place would be to support a rebellion against Saddam, and if the rebels asked us to help them.
I'd have troops in Afghanistan doing there what we're doing in Iraq now -- that is, building schools, hospitals, and roads while smoking out the real bad guys.
2006-12-31 10:05:21
·
answer #7
·
answered by serious troll 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, bin Laden are all friends or associates.
They all worked together to change American public opinion about military buildup and foreign conquests.
It is horrible to think that these men considered the lives of the 9/11 victims to be expendable to achieve their insane maniacal greedy goals.
I pray that America wakes up and looks at the evidence (what's left of it) and brings these monsters to justice.
When you have a legitimate war, you strike with all your might and bring it to a speedy end. Again Bushco is playing and manipulating so that Iraq turns into another Guatemalan 30 year civil war. Hey! ...Negroponte succeeded in Guatemala and he will succeed in Iraq.
2006-12-31 10:06:00
·
answer #8
·
answered by lovefights 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
Bomb the FUQ out of those b@st@rds !!!!
Instead of President I would prefer the title : Grand Exaulted Potentate , and Chief Mugwump of the miltary forces . I just think it sounds more threatening .
2006-12-31 11:35:38
·
answer #9
·
answered by Ray H 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
My war would have been non-existent in Iraq. No, Saddam was NOT affilliated with the terrorists that flew into the WTC. If you don't believe me, perhaps you will believe Bush.
"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush said.
2006-12-31 09:54:55
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋