When the rest of the world saw clearly that Saddam had nothing to do with the 11S attacks... why even Mr. Bush had a high popularity in the first years of this disastrous occupation?
2007-01-04 14:42:11 · 14 answers · asked by meko meko 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Not all Americans, not me, though a goodly number were blinded by hatred and revenge.
My posts/answers shows that I've been against it from jump.
I also remember that Bush's earliest actions as president were instrumental in the flare ups between Palestine and Israel. He did not like either country, he ignore them which in effect embolden Israel to desecrate the Palestinian land when Sharon visited. There was a tacit understanding that no Israeli official would go there and they did.
I also think that Bush used 9/11 to his advantage, without that tragic event the American public would have seen his ineptitude much sooner.
I pray that he has been harnessed enough that a similar tragedy will not be conveniently repeated just prior to the end of his term.
If it happens remember me.
2007-01-04 14:45:06 · answer #1 · answered by nemesis 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The invasion of Iraq was the proper response to Saddam's refusal to allow inspectors in to keep tabs on his acquisition - or intent to do so - of wmd. The fact that the UN resolution - the 17th, by the way - was acted upon by the US and Britain only proves what a toothless, bearded hag the UN really is. Also, despite the absence of wmd after the invasion, the real crime here was the Food For Oil scam that France, Germany, China, and Russia were involved in as well as the discovery of weapons materiel supplied by those same nations. A direct violation of the very accords that they endorsed. Superficially, we now know.
Your hatred of George Bush should be tempered with a few facts that have surfaced since our legal and much needed invasion to take out a dictator who would have acquired wmd and used them had WE not stopped him.
I do fault President Bush and Donald Rumsfield, though, for not listening to the Generals on the ground AND the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the initial invasion needed more troops on the ground to suppress the insurgency that we witnessed after the first blush of victory.
Granted, Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 directly, but that would not have stopped him from offering his country - for a price - to Usama bin Laden to conduct terrorist training camps for further attacks to kill Americans wherever they may be. If you are an American, this would include you and your family.
Incidentally, if you believe human rights to be central to the survival of free people, as I do, are you glad or sad that Saddam was taken down?
2007-01-04 23:03:04 · answer #2 · answered by crusty old fart 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Saddam Hussein was a criminal who needed to be brought to justice. He suppressed his country for 50 years! He used WMD's that everyone says that he didn't have to kill his people in the north!! Some of the largest Al Queda training grounds were found in Iraq, so tell me again that he wasn't apart of the 911 attacks. The pilot of one of the planes that hit the World Trade Center was trained in IRAQ.......Your probably right , Saddam wasn't apart of the decision to attack NYC and the Pentagon, But he supported the people who did. That makes him just as much at terrorist as the people who did the attacks and for that he Hung. The war wasn't as disastrous as the media likes to make it out to be.
Sometime in the distant future there might not be a need for Military, and law enforcement, and the need to bring criminals to justice, but we do not live in a land called "Perfect" As long is there is evil there will be a need to conquer it to preserve peace and freedom around the globe.
2007-01-04 23:00:58 · answer #3 · answered by SOSFG 2 · 2⤊ 3⤋
A lot of "Americans" were against it, and against Bush to start with. Even when there was no proof of nuclear weapons, it was clear the Bush was only doing it for oil.
2007-01-04 22:50:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
1)Most people realized Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. 2)We didn't invade Iraq because we thought he did. We invaded Iraq because his nation was a sponsor of terrorism that DID have WMD's.
2007-01-04 22:45:53 · answer #5 · answered by ddey65 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
They didn't, they are sending 40,000 more soldiers to re-establish the Democratic Form of Government in Iraq.
2007-01-04 22:46:32 · answer #6 · answered by wacky_racer 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you say so, just join the rest of our antiAmerican liberals and they'll agree to anything you say.In fact you all should just get your own site!
2007-01-04 23:20:11 · answer #7 · answered by Brianne 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well the Bush empire is like hitler it uses propoganda.So most Americans were too captivated by this propoganda to realise the truth.Now that they have.....Its time we see Bush's execution for crimes against peace.same charge Hitler had against him.
2007-01-04 23:09:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Iraq invasion wasn't nonsense... we went there to help a country's people take back their lives... they were being tortured, raped, and killed. We didn't go there because "we thought they had something to do with the attacks"... it was to overthrow their government and help them have rights and a democracy... and people need to support Bush since we elected him for 2 terms in the first place... GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT! loser.
2007-01-04 22:54:19 · answer #9 · answered by dementeddetour 1 · 1⤊ 4⤋
because we are quick to support and not study the facts. Not much we can do about it anyway.
2007-01-05 15:23:01 · answer #10 · answered by Eugene D 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋