attacked us and roam fairly free along the Afghan/Pakastani borders? As Hillary Suggested today? If you disagree please be resptful, I have sent 2 of my sons to fight in the war, also 2 of my son inlaws are in active military and I served in Nam. I personally blieve that we should of sent the large force into Afghansatn and defeated and slaughtered Bin Ladden's thgs, who we trained years ago, and if asecond counrty needed invading it would have been Saudi Arabia for supplying the high jackers, and continual funding of Bin Ladden, via his families business!
2007-01-17 10:01:50 · 7 answers · asked by paulisfree2004 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So many great answers I can't decide on which is the best!
2007-01-17 22:59:42 · update #1
No, I don't, first of all because we still have troops in Afghanistan, and second because Al-Qaida used Iraq as a training groud for terrorist activities before Saddam's regime was overthrown, and now use the downfall of the Ba'athists as a rallying cry for recruiting more members. When we trained the Mujahadeen, there was no Al-Qaida, so to blame us for their activities now is foolish. As for Saudi Arabia, Osama and the Saudis have been mutual enemies since 1990, when we were preparing to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. That's why he wants them dead, and that's why Radical Sunni Islamists define the former Taliban regime as the ideal Islamic government, not the Saudi Kingdom.
2007-01-17 10:10:24 · answer #1 · answered by ddey65 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In theory I agree with you. However, Saddam had to go, it was his time. Iraq was as well funding international terrorism, and nothing is to say that once we establish a pro-American independent government in Iraq that they will not funnel money to support terrorism. But we need to try to establish freedom in a region long controlled by oppression. Unfortunately, we will never be in a position to this because the American people will never get fully behind a plan like this from either side of the politcal spectrum. If approval ratings and polls weren't so damn important to these politicians, we could make unpopular decisions for the betterment of our country. And agree with me or not a free Iraq is better for our country, because freedom is contagious and could likely spread throughout the Middle East and take away power from the radicals. Terrorism is bread from oppression, the down-trodden turn to insane ideas, looking for a way out of their miserable lives.
2007-01-17 18:26:58 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Not in my opinion. I think we just brought Al Qaida to Iraq. And frankly, our chances in Iraq are better than in Afghanistan. Proven by our inability to find Osama. At least we did find Saddam.
And currently, our Senate has no intention of increasing troop levels, nor going into Afghanistan.
2007-01-17 18:13:19 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hate to burst your bubble, there is no war on terrorism, if there were Bin Laden would have been caught or killed. Remember the President has said he is no longer that important. Doesn't that say it all? Iraq in some ways has taken away from the real issue this President is a failure or it has highlighted his failings. It all depends where you stand. Thanks for serving.
2007-01-17 18:17:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
YES
The enemy is laughing at us While our sons are fighting the Bush Family War against Iraq.
Go big Red Go
2007-01-17 18:07:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
iraq? sorry, but what a joke! king abdullahs head on a platter, knock the wind out of their sails for at least 50 years.
2007-01-17 18:06:07 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely!!! I couldn't have said it any better!
2007-01-17 18:13:14 · answer #7 · answered by ball_courtney 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋