More people would rather live in peace and have the terrorists walk all over us, than to have war and keep the terrorists in their own backyard? Don't give me the crap about if there was a democrat in office, the atacks wouldn't have happened. It wouldn't have mattered who was in office, we would have had the attacks regardless. This is not a Bush/Clinton question. This is a question about American attitudes.
2007-01-09 05:24:46 · 25 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I missed the question when you asked it last. But it seems that liberals forget about the wave of anti-American terror attacks that were a regular and on going operation until 9/11/01.
2007-01-09 05:29:29 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 4⤋
There are more terrorists now BECAUSE of the war in Iraq. We've turned the war into on the job training for terrorists. There were no terrorists in Iraq until AFTER we attacked.
It's the fight them there so we don't have to fight them here mentality. Do you seriously think that if the war ended in Iraq today that all the terrorists would hop on a plane and come over here? And how do you feel about using American troops as decoys to attract terrorists there?
It doesn't matter if the 9/11 attacks happened or not. Or who was President before or during the attack. Iraq had NOTHING to do with it. Bush has even said that.
2007-01-09 05:36:49 · answer #2 · answered by Bruticusmaximus 2 · 6⤊ 0⤋
What you propose is that this is our only choice, to live in peace and let the terrorists walk all over us. It isn't. We had a choice right after 9/11. We had the choice to concentrate on eradicating Al Queda and we started out well in that venture. But then that become relegated to second status in favor of the war in Iraq, which even by Bush's admission, had nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism. Even in spite of that admission, this Administration keeps finding ways to try and link the two. I want to see all terrorists be wiped off the face of the Earth and I was ready to applaud that effort from us, and the rest of the world. The airstrikes on Somalia are something to be cheered and I hope they got the SOBs. This sort of activity should have been our concentration from Day One, and not been reduced by a war toward a country that didn't pose an imminent threat to our safety. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. I tried to eliminate the Bush relevance as you requested. But it is impossible not to cite the mistakes of this Administration in the War on Terror and answer your question at the same time. Our ports and our borders have been unbelievably porous, and remain so despite the amazing threat such tepid monitoring of them produces.
2007-01-09 06:20:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would rather keep them in their backyard than for them to tresspass in our country and destroy whatever they can get their hands on. You're right, nothing could have prevented 9/11. It was going to happen no matter who was in power. Besides, the actions from the 2 presidencies before Bush, have led up to what we are dealing with today. The first Bush should have taken out Saddam the first time we were there. We were there, why didn't we? Clinton should have handled Osama Bin Laden a little better than he did. We were attacked 4 times by Bin Laden's followers while he was president and nothing was done about it. The first was the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, then there was the bombing of the USS Cole, then the 2 US Embassies that were attacked. All in a span of 8 years, which is only a small handfull of events that led up to 9/11. Why wasn't anything done about this? People that want to blame Bush directly, obviously know nothing about the history behind 9/11 and Iraq. Besides, we did find WMD's in Iraq. We found a cache of Mustard bombs, one bomb can kill thousands of people at once. I guess because they weren't nuclear bombs, then they weren't considered WMD's by the public. Once that was found we moved on to trying to capture Saddam, which as successful, and establish a Democratic government, which we have done. Now we are caught in the middle of sectarian violence that was started by extremists. You know, that with every long term goal, there will be bumps in the road. This war is only just beginning. Afghanistan and Iraq just happen to be the first 2 countries on the list. This is reality.
2007-01-09 05:40:30 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Okay, I know this is going to be hard for you to understand, but I am going to try again anyway:
I was not against the war in Afghanistan. I supported Bush's decision to invade for the purpose of capturing Osama.
Osama was the mastermind behind 9/11, and I do believe this. But I also know for a fact, that Osama and Saddam HATED each other. There were no ties between them. Therefore, the assumptions made that Saddam had something to do with the terrorist attacks are idiotic.
If you assume that Saddam DID help with the attacks on the WTC, then ask yourself why he wasn't tried for that crime. Ask yourself why he wasn't tried for having WMDs. Ask yourself why Scott Ritter, UN Inspector, said there were NO WMDs in Iraq.
The war in Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism. It has NOTHING to do with WMDs.
1) There was a grudge between the Bush family and Saddam.
2) Although I don't think it was a priority, Iraq has oil.
3) Saddam had 40 BILLION dollars in US currency that he was threatening to cash in for Eurodollars. This would have devalued the US dollar 40%.
I do believe that the WTC attacks would have happened if there had been a democrat in office. But I don't believe that we would have invaded Iraq.
Keep in mind, that over the last six years, Bush has almost completely alienated the CIA and FBI with his finger pointing.
2007-01-09 05:37:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
each and every man or woman is entitled to have a good time or not have a good time what they opt for. the objective of this communicate board is for sharing different reviews and viewpoints. regrettably in this one I even might want to agree there have been a honest style of responses that stepped over the line and contained own attacks. those attacks, coming from all sides have become more desirable ordinary right here at present. Adoption might want to be an emotionally charged subject matter, not doubt yet those products does not extra the recognize-how or communicate. that's too undesirable...i am hoping human beings can reign it in and bypass decrease back to having more desirable respectful discussions.
2016-10-17 00:30:58 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
most people are stupid enough to believe that if a Democrat was in the house that the terrorists would go away. but you and I are smart enough to know that regardless of who is in the House, Congress, whatever, that the terrorists would still get us. The difference is how we deal with it. If a Dem is in the house, terrorists would attack us and instead of being aggressive, it would be all about "what can we do to make the terrorists like us?" The answer is nothing. They are hell bent on destroying America and will stop at nothing. The only way to save ourselves is to wipe these Muslims off the planet.
2007-01-09 05:29:33 · answer #7 · answered by The Pilot 3 · 3⤊ 3⤋
well if we let terrorists walk all over us we wouldn't have peace...and the simple fact is we were at peace when those scumbags rammed the planes into us. you're right it didn't matter who was in office, in fact if clinton would have finished what he started we wouldn't have had them bold enough to attack us once again....remember the world trade center years earlier, the u.s.s. cole....bottom line its not about power, its about standing up for ourselves...just like with any bully whether its at school or the leader of another country, if you back down he will only see you as weak and pursue you to beat you up another day...if stand up to him right off you may get a bloody nose but he will respect and fear you and won't be so apt to come after you again. the big problem is too many ppl in the u.s. think you can 'talk' and 'reason' with these terrorists when in their country they view compromise as a weakness and those who do it as cowards and infidels...so do they really think cow towing to these ppl will work? nah....you got to hit 'em hard and fast the first time and don't give them a chance to stand back up.
2007-01-09 05:32:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
America? Where did America go? The America I knew when I was growing up has changed. Lawmakers are passing laws on a daily basis that violate the rights of every American Citizen and everyone tucks their head in the sand and ignores what is going on. And what is really scary about this it is all supported by a criminal president. Most people tend to think these wars with their censored propaganda wouldn't have happened if this country wasn't being run by a president who only has the interests of the rich oil barons in mind. I tend to agree with that state of mind.
It is a known fact that the American government is criminal and corrupt and would allow the attack of 9/11 to take place if it would serve their best interest in the way of making them richer. Open your eyes. This country is being raped by the rich politicians running it.
2007-01-09 05:36:31 · answer #9 · answered by Jimmy H 1 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Judging by the questions you keep asking, you're probably too young to even remember Clinton. Its not an issue of Reps vs. Dems. Bush Sr didn't screw things up this bad, nor did Reagan or Clinton. Its simply an issue of Bush Jr. being a bad leader.
a quote from the asker's profile: " I believe Hitler had the right idea and should have been left alone to finish what he started"
2007-01-09 05:34:43 · answer #10 · answered by The Maestro 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You are absolutely right and I would much rather we take care of those evil terrorists elsewhere than on our own soil. Just wait, I feel unfortunately there will be another attack and the liberals that felt we should negotiate will be the first ones complaining when it's someone they love that was brutally murdered by a terrorist. They just don't get it that you cannot, I repeat, cannot negotiate with a terrorist. To think you can is totally irrational.
2007-01-09 05:32:20 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋