SERIOUSLY, what would you have done?

Question

Your country has been hit(911) by an identified and notorious enemy.

It was hit by a madman that your predecessor did very little to stop (‘98 U.S. Embassy bombings, ‘93 World Trade Center bombing , 2000 USS Cole bombing).

The madman did it because you have military forces in Saudi Arabia(yes, al-Qaeda’s objective for attacking the US is the withdraw military forces from Islamic countries.)

You have military forces in Saudi Arabia to prevent another madman in Iraq from invading your allies in the region.

Your intelligence agencies and intelligence agencies around the world believe that the madman in Iraq is trying to get his hands on nuclear weapons.

These are the facts that you know at the time.

SERIOUSLY, what would you have done?
Waited for him to strike you country or use force to remove him from power?
.

For those that say I’m trying to make a connection to 911, these are the facts.
Please tell me where I went wrong?

Answer 1

Exactly the same thing. Those who say otherwise would prefer peace at all cost. We tried that for a few years, and 9/11 is what we got in return.

Answer 2

What would you do????

Your daddy, the former president, thinks you are a fool and has told you that you would never amount to anything. When he was president, daddy fought with the Iraqis but stopped short of Baghdad. Now, you are the president and you will show daddy that you can command a big army full of big guns to take over Iraq oilfields and get Saddam.

After years of neglect by several administrations, Al Queda takes down the WTC... You know who is responsible so you strap on your six-guns and head in another direction.....

Your intelligence agencies, military experts, United Nations and others tell you there are no WMD's in Iraq but you can't take your eyes off the oil money. So you lie to everyone, make up your own stories and go after the oil.

You have forgotten all about Al Queda.

Four years into the war, you keep sending more young soldiers against the cannons in Iraq while the situation worsens daily, your "allies" are leaving and Iraq is falling into civil war and anarchy, the top military generals and experts have disagreed with the war strategy and the escalation - so you fire them, accept their resignation, remove them from office and only speak with those who will kiss your behind.

You commission a bipartisan committe of experts to analyze the Iraq situation and return their opinions and suggestion....and you trash-can it because it doesn't agree with what you are doing.

You think you are a king because you think you can do anything you want to do inspite of the citizens want...

You look surprised when Congress eventually gives you a choice: resign or be impeached and removed from office.

Now, as to Iraq presenting a danger to the United States.....even if they did have a full and working nuclear machine, they have no delivery system...they posed no danger to us... Iraq was like a small bug that avoid the fly swatter....

But then, there is all that oil and $$$$$ for Bushie and his good buds.

Answer 3

All I'm gonna say is is that if the 'madman' was as dangerous as he was supposed to be: Don't ever forget that the United States has those type of spies that you think only exist in the movies. We could have taken the 'madman' out with a blow dart. And don't ever forget that our Sniper's are the best in the world for a reason. We could have halo dropped a two man sniper team in at 20,000 feet in the middle of the night to set up for the 'madman's' monthly swim he made in the Tigris, shot him from 4 miles out, and be done with it. In the end, the madman was so deadly he was found in a dirt hole.
We had every right to go and fu ck up Afghanistan. But, Iraq had no ties with the Taliban in the beginning. They do now, but the 911 commission proved otherwise.
3700 hundred american lives, and over 38,000 Iraqi's are dead over some aluminum tubes.

Answer: I would have issued an order for an overt CIA operation to have the 'madman' taken out with a snipe shot from a gun bought within' another country. That's what I would have done.

Funny, how the gas prices went down right before the elections last year, and now they're slowly creeping back up.

Answer 4

Terrorism is a hideous new reality that we must try to eliminate. God knows It's not easy, nobody "knows" the right answers, but most of us are doing our best.

But it seems to me that you are lumping together most or all Muslims or Muslim countries.

It is true that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, like many other unstable countries, would not have minded in the least if America was successfully attacked. And it's also true that Osama bin Laden was perfectly willing to actually attack us. We knew that. But that does not necessarily connect them to each other in terms of 9/11.

Bin Laden is a Saudi Arabian national by birth. as were each and every 9/11 terrorist. That is not even a good enough reason to attack Saudi Arabia, much less Iraq. The parallel would be for an America-hating Islamic country to attack Canada in response to perceived U.S. injustice.

Furthermore, Saddam Hussein was a Sunni who terrorized and murdered citizens of his own country: Shi'ites and Kurds. Bin Laden IS a shi'ite. We knew that, as well as the scope and depth of that eternal inter-Muslim conflict.

Truthfully and seriously, I do not know enough to know what I would have/ should have done. Certainly, the first response -- hunting down bin Laden -- was, and continues to be our foremost objective. But I do know and did know then that I would not have attacked or invaded or attempted to democratize Iraq, especially without more world support, because I knew that no governmental change of that sort, especially one imposed by military force would do anything but put a different group of inter-haters in "control". And now, I really don't know what we should be doing to contain the damage.

Answer 5

i would not have continued reading a children's book.

but seriously.

i would have invaded afghanistan like we did.

i wouldn't have invaded iraq though. intelligence agencies didn't believe that iraq was developing wmds. there was some evidence but most everybody with knowledge of the evidence felt it could not be substantiated. i would have continued to demand that saddam let un inspectors into the country all the while keeping my attention on afghanistan and defeating the taliban and al qaeda.

as soon as i could i would start putting together an aid and economic stimulus package for afghanistan. i would also push our allies to do the same. once control of afghanistan was secured i would start a massive public works project, building schools, hospitals, etc to gain the support and trust of the afghan people. this would ensure that the taliban couldnt come back into power.

once this was done i would start creating a new afghan government. after that i'd do all i can to legitimize that government in the eyes of its people and in the eyes of the international community.

for the most part i would have ignored iraq. and that is an honest answer.

Answer 6

I would have waited to resort to war. Nothing suggested Saddam was an immediate threat, yet I would have acknowledged he does pose a threat. Then I would work with the U.N. (and listen, unlike Bush) and establish a series of diplomatic talks. If after all this it was proven war was necessary, I would still wait and continue diplomacy with Sadam, and use any stubborness he may show to rally support from other nations. I would also work to establish an exit strategy. While Sadam may have been brutal, the nation was stable. I would take advantage of this and be prepared to contain any violence that would result from removing Sadam from power. I would also have had airtight borders so we wouldn't have to deal with an influx of terrorists from Iran.
Some of this may seem like Monday morning quarterbacking, but for a man who is surrounded by hundreds of people whose job it is to analyze the situation, it truly makes Iraq possibly the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. After 9/11, we were united as a country and many people supported the war. Troops were plentiful since the was a desire for revenge. Yet war was rushed, and not used as a last resort, which is the worst mistake a president can make. It is embarrassing to the president and the pentagon who could allow such a war to be waged.

Answer 7

Iraq never had any connection to 911. Stop watching Fox News. The intelligence was padded to create a backing for an invasion so Bush could secure the oil and hand out all kinds of contracts to his war profiteering friends.

Answer 8

Al Qaeda's objective for attacking the US is because we are working for peace. Islam is centered around converting the rest of the world to Islam and if they don't convert they are killed.

Answer 9

Your oversimplifying the situation. the fact is that the intelligence agencies were told to find a connection between Iraq and 9-11 and that intel that contradicted this claim was disregarded. I would have attacked Afghanistan and taken out Bin Ladin and would not have gone into Iraq. I then would have spent billions on increasing intel and protecting our borders and harbors to prevent future attacks.

Answer 10

At first Bush did the right thing, attacked those who attacked us, Al qaeda based in Afghanistan.

Then we went on this Iraq diversion. We shaped the Intel to please our Neo-con friends who voiced wanting to go there even before 9/11.

That is where Bush messed up. By his own admission Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

So why do people keep bringing up 9/11 as a reason for invading Iraq?