on 9 11 bush said we were going to war to find bin laden in afganistan...now we are in iraq looking for what...the factions in iraq have been fighting for centuries... you dont hear anything about bin laden anymore...why do we bother with iraq when we caught saddam???
2007-01-31 06:27:23 · 16 answers · asked by brett w 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
good point!! you are intelligent person with good question! the fact is, this whole war on terrorism would not have gotten this bad if our so-called leaders had not had their heads up their butts! getting OSMA BIN LADEN SHOULD BEEN TOP PRIORITY AFTER THE NEW YORK TRAGEDY! IT IS AMAZING HOW WE TOOK OUR EYES OFF HIM AND HIS CRONIES, WHO CONTINUE TO PLAN ANOTHER ATTACK, AND WENT INTO IRAQ! AND YOU ARE RIGHT IN SAYING THE SHIITES AND SUNNIS HAVE BEEN AT IT SINCE BIBLICAL TIMES! +TIHS CURRENT SITUATION IN IRAQ WILL TURN OUT OT BE WORSE THAN VIETNAM BECAUSE THIS INVOLVES PEOPLE WHO CARE NOTHING ABOUT HUMAN LIFE, AND THINK THEY GAT TO HEAVEN BY KILLING OTheR PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE WITH THEIR EVIL IDEOLOGIES! we are now caught in a quagmire and cannot get out because of the egfo and decisions of george bush, the worst president of all time!! it is up to the lameduck congrees and senate to get oof their butts and make policies that will reign in the power of one! MAN!! BUSH!! OUR CONSTITUTION NEEDS TO BE AMENDED AND ONE DAY WILL SEE THE LIGHT AND REWORD 'commander in chief" so the president cannot get thousands of trrops killed for no reason!! dandidonna@yahoo.com says that this antion is in trouble if the people do not stand up and get a message through to these politicians that they are leading us into big trouble!
2007-01-31 06:39:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
It is a far more complex question than can be answered in a few sentences. I would suggest you purchase a book called "A long short war: The postponed liberation of Iraq". It's written by Christopher Hitchens, a brilliant journalist, political commentator, and literary critic, who is very well know for his atheism, anti fascism, anti monarchism, who took a very strong stance against the Vietnam war and even the Persian gulf war of 1991 but then later changed his mind. He goes detail as to why the Bush administration went into Iraq. The book even talks about things you never hear in the news.
There are a lot of books out there that make the argument of not going into Iraq. One is called "The battle for peace" it was written by the former chief of staff for the US Army who argues that out of all the problems in the middle east, Saddam represented about problem number eight, and that he was bumped up to number one. Read both the books, and then make up your mind. What ever you do don't listen to the uneducated people on this website.
2007-01-31 14:38:01 · answer #2 · answered by billy d 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because we were looking for regime change in Iraq. The first stage is to eject the Iraq regime (Saddam) which has been completed. The next stage is to finalize Iraq's government which we are working on.
I think Iraq was a diversion because US forces had a feeling they would not catch Bin Laden, he has been prepared to hide and survive in the wild without being caught, especially after what he pulled.
2007-01-31 14:31:25 · answer #3 · answered by Pfo 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
a better question is why not Iraq? Saddam was a brutal dictator, he used WMD's on the Kurds in the past, and his own people, it was not such a far leap to assume getting rid of him would prevent problems for the West, and the Middle East in the future.
2007-01-31 15:33:42 · answer #4 · answered by John B 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Its all a lie. Bush wanted to get into Iraq before 9/11, but had no excuse.
2007-01-31 15:35:07 · answer #5 · answered by winstonbad 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
since we deposed their leader, we need to at least offer them some security from being taken over by Iran.
then there's this: BILL CLINTON, 1998
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
{SNIP}
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort.
2007-01-31 14:36:42 · answer #6 · answered by political junkie 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You're missing the point, we were attacked by terrorists on 9/11. 15 came from Saudi Arabia, 3 Iran, 1 Yemen. Isn't it obvious that we had to take on Iraq? I mean, after how Bush senior was threatened by Saddam what could junior do but fabricate lies to justify going after them?
2007-01-31 14:36:21 · answer #7 · answered by Alan S 7 · 0⤊ 5⤋
It is very clear. Because we want to battle the terrorists in Iraq, not here. And also because the international terrorist's organizations want to stop us there so they use most of their forces to kick us back home and fight here!
2007-01-31 14:38:15 · answer #8 · answered by holyfire 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Because you Kool-aide drinking moron, you can't just dispose of a maniac like Saddam and leave. What are you 10?
2007-01-31 14:35:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
"hey you answered my question and then commented it you stupid liberal...your probably asian "
That's "YOU'RE". As in YOU ARE. Not YOUR. YOUR is the possessive form. What's wrong with you? I know more English than you and I can definitely drive my car better than you.
2007-01-31 19:14:43 · answer #10 · answered by trer 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋