The best way to catch Bin-Laden in Afghanistan was to go after Sadam in Iraq!!?

Question

agree or disagree.

Answer 1

how stupid are u?
the best way to secure our HEGEMONY in middle east was to go after suddam in name of laden so it would take 4 years for people like you to understand whats going on.
but hey if George bush could answer this question he would say.....too late dumb azz.....its done.

Answer 2

President Bush is one of the good guys. He's got a pair of balls and a Texas attitude that you liberal A/Holes just don't comprehend. Go strap on an F-16 like he has, or read up on fighter pilots, and you may just get a glimmer of what he's really like.

Will we attack Iran? Only if they pose an imminent threat to the US or it's allies. It's really up to Iran, but rest assured, we'd have to stand in line behind Israel.

So soon you all forget, or is it you are just too young to remember. Saddam brought death and destruction down on himself.

For years, he arrogantly told the UN to go to Hell. He was given numerous chances over several years to allow full inspections for WMD's. He would not allow full and complete inspections. During all that time, I think he moved the weapons he had to Syria or buried them in the Iraqi desert. He did not think anyone had the balls to finally give him an ultimatum and follow through with military action if he did not comply with the UN sanctions. After 9/11, he gambled wrong. 9/11 changed the playing field on a world scale. Also if Colin Powell had not stopped General Norman Schwarzkopf during the Kuwaiti conflict, this last conflict would not have been necessary. You need to understand that we are at war, and thank God, our Military, and our President for making the hard decisions it takes to keep conflicts overseas and not in our streets.

Answer 3

Seeing as Bin Laden was hiding in a cave eating cockroaches by the time we went in to free the Iraqis of Saddams tyranny, it is a moot point.
Mr Bush decared war on TERRORISM - not on Bin Laden per se.
The Iraq conflict is merely one battlefield in a long and noble effort to keep our way of life free.
At the point when we rendered Bin Laden powerless and irrelevant, there wasn't much point in expending lives and treasure to exterminate him.
Saddam, at that point, was a far greater threat and his continued violations of the Gulf War Ceasefire gave us the justification to go in and remove him.
I know you chaps hate dealing in facts but what I just laid out for you is the actual case.

Answer 4

Just as sure as attacking Mexico was the proper thing to do when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor

Since the UN says there were NO WMDs he was never in Violation of the UN Resolutions. Unlike ISRAEL which is in violation of over 30 UN Resolutions

Answer 5

Apparently you think the best way to get Bin-Laden is to get on Yahoo answers and ask stupid questions like this. Or did you really have a plan you would like to share with us. Go ahead, we are waiting........

Answer 6

Look it was a start, now the next time our bearded super heros over there may think twice , and while Im at it
we need to relax the rules of engagment and show those
godless fools an express ticket to all those virgins

Answer 7

Saddam and bin Laden have nothing to do with each other.

Answer 8

Of course not.

This was just a personal wish of Bush, Cheney and those that contribute heavily to his campaign.

Answer 9

What are you talking about - two different people. Saddam needed to be taken out of power - plain and simple.

Answer 10

The world changed for many -- apparently not you -- after 9/11.

-- Saddam Hussein violated numerous United Nations resolutions following the first Persian Gulf War. Saddam's military continuously shot at U.S. and British planes patrolling the Northern and Southern No-Fly Zones. He offered $25,000 to families of homicide bombers. We know he possessed chemical and biological weapons because he used them during the Iraq/Iran war, and on his own people, the Kurds.

-- The October '02 National Intelligence Estimate concluded with "high confidence" -- the highest certainty allowed -- that Saddam possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. All 16 intelligence agencies contributing to the NIE unanimously agreed on the chemical and biological weapons assumptions, with disagreement only on how far along Saddam was toward acquiring nukes.

-- Weapons inspectors found no WMD stockpiles, leading many Americans to feel that the president either lied or cherry-picked intelligence to lead us into war. But the Robb-Silverman Commission concluded that the president didn't lie. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee's 511-page report concluded that the president did not lie. The British Butler Commission, which examined whether Prime Minister Tony Blair "sexed up" the intelligence to make a case for war, concluded the PM didn't lie.

-- Kenneth Pollack, an opponent of the Iraq war, served as Iraq expert and intelligence analyst in the Clinton administration. Pollack writes that during his 1999-2001 tour on the National Security Council, " . . . the intelligence community convinced me and the rest of the Clinton Administration that Saddam had reconstituted his WMD programs following the withdrawal of the UN inspectors, in 1998, and was only a matter of years away from having a nuclear weapon. . . . The U.S. intelligence community's belief that Saddam was aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction pre-dated Bush's inauguration, and therefore cannot be attributed to political pressure. . . . Other nations' intelligence services were similarly aligned with U.S. views. . . . Germany . . . Israel, Russia, Britain, China, and even France held positions similar to that of the United States. . . . In sum, (SET ITAL) no one (END ITAL) doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction."

-- Meanwhile, neighboring Iran defiantly pursues nuclear weapons. Bush reasoned that a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq would destabilize Iran, accomplishing regime change without military force. This would encourage the rest of the Arab world to direct their grievances toward their own leaders, rather than against the "infidels."

-- We remain in Iraq because, as former Secretary of State James Baker put it, "[I]f we picked up and left right now . . . you would see the biggest civil war you've ever seen. Every neighboring country would be involved in there, doing its own thing, Turkey, Iran, Syria, you name it, and even our friends in the Gulf."

-- Former Secretary of State and informal Bush adviser Henry Kissinger -- who knows something about the consequences of cutting and running -- wrote, "Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy."

-- The political aim of our Islamofascist enemies is a worldwide Caliphate, or Islamic world. Renowned Islam expert Bernard Lewis recently reiterated his support for the war: "The response to 9/11 came as a nasty surprise [to bin Laden and his followers]. They were expecting more of the same -- bleating and apologies -- instead of which they got a vigorous reaction, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. And as they used to say in Moscow: It is no accident, comrades, that there has been no successful attack in the United States since then. . . . [T]he effort is difficult and the outcome uncertain, but I think the effort must be made. Either we bring them freedom, or they destroy us."

True, 2,800 of our best have died. Any figure above zero is a tragedy. But America -- on both sides of the Civil War -- lost more than 600,000 soldiers, or 2 percent of the country's population of 31 million. Of our country's 132 million, we lost more than 400,000 in World War II, or .3 percent of our population. In the Korean War, we lost 37,000, and the Vietnam War saw 58,000 dead.

Many people say that after failing to find stockpiles of WMD, Bush "switched" rationale for the war. Consider this excerpt from a New York Times editorial about a speech Bush gave weeks before the coalition entered Iraq:

"President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a 'free and peaceful Iraq' that would serve as a 'dramatic and inspiring example' to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Still confused? Please write back, and I'll try again.