Is there anyone out there who thinks that the war in Iraq was a valid response to the massacre on 911?

Question

I've just seen a documentary about the war in Iraq. There were a few vox pop interviews in which some American people were suggesting that the war was a valid response to 911. Is there anybody out there who still believes this, and if so, why?
thank you.

Thank you Nacnud. You have partly answered my question.
You think the question is a statement that Osama should be let off?
Please think about whether you answered my question, or whether you went into knee jerk response.

ExSarge-you're better than the last one, you state that the UN said it was OK, sorry; maybe you're joking?

Answer 1

we went to aghanistan in response to 911. it was valid and still is. what? we shouldn't bring OBL to justice?

Answer 2

Read "The Greatest Story Ever Told" by Frank Rich. It documents how the Bush administration invented an excuse for unconstitutionally and illegally invading another sovereign country that in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the U.S.A.
The Bush administration is perhaps the greatest sham in American political history. George W. Bush invaded Iraq for three really 'lame' reasons:
1) The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam Hussein ever since Desert Storm, when George H.W. Bush was ridiculed, criticized and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time;
2) Dick Cheney and his Exxon-Mobil greedheads wanted all that cheap, easily-accessible OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so they could get richer and richer and richer feeding American motorists' addiction to foreign OIL;
3) Ever since World War II, the giant U.S. military-industrial complex recognized how profitable 'war' could be. So they bought up all the politicians, hired pricey lobbyists, and formed special interest groups to encourage and promote 'war'. Thus, the U.S. was entangled in the Korean Conflict; the Cuban Missile Crisis; the Cold War; Vietnam; and Desert Storm - all for the sake of PROFITS.
The 'war' was NOT a valid response to 9/11/01. In fact, there is considerable speculation that the Bush administration might have participated - or, at least, known about - the attack on the Twin Towers in New York City.
-RKO-

Answer 3

Going to Iraq was not a response to 9/11.

It was, however, valid.

The UN said so.

The US Congress said so.

Hillary Clinton said so.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your opinion.

ON EDIT: I hope the system points out to you that an answer has been edited. You said:

"ExSarge-you're better than the last one, you state that the UN said it was OK, sorry; maybe you're joking?"

No joke.

Between the end of the first Gulf War in 1991 there were sixteen separate UN resolutions requiring Iraq to do certain things. At least nine of them were the UN "condemning" or "deploring" vioations of other UN resolutions and restating the UNs demands for certain actions or cessation of action.

The last one states that the Security Council has repeatedly warned Iraq and that it "will face serious consequences" as a result of its continued violations of its obligations. This is diplomatic language that means "here we come". This is the one that the US and a coaltion of over 20 different countries enforced by the invasion and overthrow of the offending government.

Answer 4

Try to form your own opinions and don't allow yourself t be swayed by others. For the record I supported the initial efforts in Iraq, not only because I thought he had WMDs, but also because I'm well aware of the fact that Saddam Hussein is a disgusting individual who deserved what he eventually got. With that said, I will also admit that my views were obviously incorrect about WMDs, and if I knew what I knew now, of course I would not have supported the war, and neither would Bush. It's very difficult to judge a man without ever being in his shoes. You were never in the oval office when intelligent reports came in that said he had WMDs and would give them to terrorist without hesitation. What's a president to do after something like 9/11? If he doesn't do something and we get attacked again, everyone would be all over him for not going after Saddam. The fact of the matter is, it was a bad decision to go into Iraq, but it was a decision made in good faith. I know I know, Bush lied about WMDs... So his plan was to basically go into Iraq, and when the truth came out that there weren't any WMDs, he'd look like a total idiot right? Even he's not that stupid...

And the fact that RKO thinks that the Bush administration had a hand in 9/11... LOL well, that pretty much takes any legitimacy out of anything he's said.

Answer 5

properly the only connection between the two is that 9/11 became used as an excuse to start a conflict in Iraq...Now all of us recognize that Iraq had no longer something to do with Al Qaeda or the assaults on US... besides ritefielder seems to forget approximately that the 2nd US invaded Iraq there have been approximately 0 terrorists...Now attributable to that "inspired invasion" Iraq is a preparation camp for terrorism...So this may be a conflict against terrorism or a conflict for the proliferation of terrorism... lower back Iraq had quite no connection with 9/11...

Answer 6

Saddam's support for global terrorism and for people involved with the 9/11 attacks were factors in the liberation of Iraq but not the ONLY factors.

Saddam had also broken the U.N. peace treaty 17 times, had played cat-and-mouse with U.N. nuclear inspectors for 12 years, was in violation of U.N. accords in the Oil for Food scandal (the biggest in the history of the world in terms of money), and continued to pose a threat to the Iraqi people, the entire Middle East and to the world in general.

Answer 7

no. i think in a lot of ways, 911 was a way to justify a war that was long since in the making....... not saying that it didn't have some play in the wars "validity." i'm still not sold on whether or not the war is justified or not.... so...... i use validity lightly.

Answer 8

Definately a valid response. Why? - So many Americans and members of their (civilian) allies were killed that day. Investigative leads pointed to Iraqians and other members of closely associated (or like-minded) races. So....why not???? "Where there's doubt, there is no doubt" Kill them all....and sleep peacefully!!

Answer 9

No, hopefully nobody still believes this.

Answer 10

I do not believe it. This is what it's REALLY about!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm