I mean catching Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri (sp) and finishing the job there. Leaving Saddam in power because he hated Al-qeada and had no weapons of mass destruction. What do you think?
2007-03-23 15:41:55 · 13 answers · asked by P H 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Absolutely, right after 9/11 George Bush had an approval rating of nearly 90% that held up through the invasion of Afghanistan. When he invaded Iraq that same approval rating started to drop, it has hit a low of around 28%, the American people are not stupid, they are dumb for allowing George Bush to happen in the first place but have figured it out that he is wrong most of the time. Yes, the country would have been way far ahead to leave Saddam in place and went after Bin Laden.
2007-03-23 15:49:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Iraq war was suppose to be a war on terrorism. The administration went to the UN and congress with evidence that Saddam was making WMD's and harboring terror cells. There have been investigations since saying that the intelligence was fault or down right fraudulent. I do not support the initial war, however now that we overthrew the government and caused terrorist to flood the country, we have to help clean the mess. Pull out should not be an option, because if we do Iran will take it over and then go after Israel. What it comes down to is the US has been trying to police the world for a long time and we ended up getting ourselves into possibly a 20 year war this time.
2007-03-23 15:50:47 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The Republicans think that is one and the same. It's not. Yes, we should have stuck with the true war on terrorism. Saddam was nothing to Bush, just an object of his obsessive war.
2007-03-23 15:46:00 · answer #3 · answered by CC 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
precise a invoice on digital racism would be advantageous and that i'd agree that government treats voters like rubbish by way of fact they have not executed something approximately mailer demon or consistent pc errors and excuses while issues subject environmentalism messages no longer despatched. you recognize i think of an elected peeople's congress ought to look into this particularly of the white domicile .possibly time to tell FBI approximately mailer demon or is destroying planet nationwide secure practices .i advise destroying eco device defined as nationwide secure practices.
2016-10-01 09:53:58 · answer #4 · answered by husted 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Saddam was giving 25,000 dollars to suicide bombers families. Iraq is part of the war on Terrorism.
2007-03-23 15:50:56 · answer #5 · answered by BUsiness man 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
which would you rather, them over here or us over there? I'd rather us be over there, I have alot of friends and family in the military, and I've heard so many times that we're actually more safe there than here. I have a brother in Iraq, and honestly I'm really tired of hearing the hippies going on and on about how we shouldnt be over there, when they should just be supporting the people who keep our country a free one.
2007-03-23 15:46:50 · answer #6 · answered by Erica C 1 · 3⤊ 2⤋
immensely.
Our country and the world would be better off.
The world would be better off with Sadaam in charge of Iraq than it is now.
2007-03-23 15:44:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Iraq is part of the war on terror. If it had gone better, Bush would be seen as a visionary.
2007-03-23 15:45:24 · answer #8 · answered by WJ 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Um...who do you think we are fighting in Iraq?
2007-03-23 16:12:31 · answer #9 · answered by i_love_my_mp 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I think you just answered your own question.
2007-03-23 15:45:19 · answer #10 · answered by Seldom Seen 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋