I feel like Bush and his family had a grudge against Saddam for nothing. I think the country which should have been invaded was Iran- not Iraq.
2007-01-13 15:09:08 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Yes! I definitely feel that Iraq was invaded wrongly and with malice of forethought. Senior intelligence officials who had access to the data that was being used to justify the attack on Iraq have said that the intelligence did not support the Bush Administration's actions. And they were saying this before Iraq was attacked. Vociferously, I might add. I can recall reading newspaper accounts before March of 2003 which reported stringent objections of some of these individuals to how the intelligence data was being skewed to support an attack on Iraq. They claimed the information being used was skimpy, incomplete and unreliable. Yet our would-be emperor, Kaiser Georg I, overruled their objections. Essentially, what Bush and Company did was to cook the intelligence books, in what amounted to a sort of political Enron.
What should have been done was to concentrate on finding Osama bin Laden, the actual mastermind of the attacks and the man who proved he did have the capacity to wreak havoc on U.S. cities. Had more forces been sent to Afghanistan, rather than squandered on Iraq, Osama might well have been brought to justice by now.
2007-01-13 15:41:30 · answer #1 · answered by MathBioMajor 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Possibly, but who made the US the authority on terrorism? This whole thing about; Stopping terrorism is a joke, anyone who believed stopping terrorism was possible, wasn't thinking with a pull packet of bikkies. Terrorism will never be stopped. Think long and hard on it, how is it possible? It isn't. As for Iran, why not Korea, and China, oh, and the old foggie Russia, and how about some Indonesian countries, and France and ......... come on, you can't go around invading countries, call it putting an end to terrorism, and expect any kind of respect and acceptance from the rest of the world. Doesn't cut it.
2007-01-13 15:18:50 · answer #2 · answered by Kesta♥ 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
well... iraq didn't orchestrate 9/11 -- and many, if not most of the terrorists named were saudi -- Powell even threw up papers in the air when preparing for telling people why we needed to go to Iraq, and said "This is b*******t.
Bush didn't give the inspectors time to do their job, and all of the soil samples, air samples, etc. that they were doing came up with nothing.
There should have been no invasion. We are supposed to be the strongest country, (and as such shouldn't ever need to raise our "big stick" -- ) and yet, we have the weakest diplomacy skills.
2007-01-13 15:24:35 · answer #3 · answered by kaliselenite 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The American government would not have allowed President Bush to invade Iraq because he held a grudge! Get real........
2007-01-14 01:23:30 · answer #4 · answered by tcbtoday123 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
THE-day soccer season exchange into rescheduled by way of fact of 'terrorists' my thought exchange into we could constantly not exchange a damn element merely by way of fact some islamo-punks pulled the wool over Bush's eyes...then it have been given relatively nuts...we lost the conflict in spirit as quickly as we compromised our innovations..(invasion of Iraq).and then we grew to become almost as low by way of fact the attacking cowards..water-boards or torture is an afternoon on the farm for those radicals?...why not the Hague it is the place Hitlers cronies confronted conflict crime justice?, yet vast coach for not something now no lead to sight..merely.numerous funds long previous...
2016-12-16 04:09:00 · answer #5 · answered by binford 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Iraq didn't have to be invaded in the first place, if H.W., Clintin, and Boober were all neutral, aithiest, or budest, this all could have been avoided. They should have just let Iraq be Iraq. (I mean no offense to christians, jews, islam,ect.)
2007-01-13 15:19:10 · answer #6 · answered by Answerer 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
absolutely! We should of gone all out against Bin Ladden, maybe even invaded Suadi Arabia, as albut one of the highjacers were Saudis, Bon Ladden still is funded via them, and hell we could of had him by now had we used the resopurces against al quieda rathe than saddem
2007-01-13 19:48:48 · answer #7 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
bush went after the weakest country of the three.
2007-01-13 15:20:48 · answer #8 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Bush and his thug friends did 9/11. So clearly, you are in error, completely in error.
2007-01-13 15:18:32 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
yeah! exactly what did iraq have to do with 9/11? not that we should hav attacked anyone at all.
2007-01-13 15:19:12 · answer #10 · answered by ? 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋