Because George Bush wanted the oil fields over fighting terrorism with Osama Bin Laden. Where is Osama anyway?
2007-04-01 04:25:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Old (G) 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Let's see...I remember seeing the tape of Osama bin Chicken laughing about the twin towers and what a great job he did. While he was living it up in his little terrorist training camps in Afghan. LOL, honestly, I know the democrats said they took care of it when Bill "I did not do it!" Clinton shot a couple of bombs in the area of Afghan. No confirmed hits. He did get a confirmed hit under his desk! Impeached? Nahhh, ask Hillary. LOL! Oh, that's right! He "did not inhale", so another no hitter! Oh darn! Iraq, hmmm, the dictator was killing his own people with nerve gas, hanging them, torture chambers and invading a next door neighbor. Yep, your right! I can't think of a single thing or reason, including the assasination attempt on George Bush Sr., to invade Iraq! Yes sir! Let's blame it on Bush, Blair, the ex-president of Spain...Oh and Italy, even the Japanese! Don't forget them! Don't forget to walk or ride a bike to work. And don't fly on a plane or take a train ride. It's funded by Saudi Oil Co. Inc. LOL, go hug a tree! LOL!
2007-04-01 02:26:14
·
answer #2
·
answered by Chuckles 1
·
0⤊
2⤋
Bin Ladin was hiding out with the Taliban in Afghanistan where he found a very sympathetic government. Going after him there and pushing the Taliban out was sensible. Leaving before getting him wasn't.
I think as time goes by we can see that it wasn't just the birthplace of the 911 attackers, but where they put themselves on the political spectrum that makes them the enemy. Invading Saudi Arabia made even less sense than going after Saddam, at least he and his sons were certifiable.
If Bush had a clue as to how to run a war, things could have turned out very differently, but time after time we have seen that he listens only to those who agree with him and those who don't, go.
Bush values old ties, and loyalty over and above experience and ability to the detriment of everything hes set his hand to.
2007-04-01 02:24:59
·
answer #3
·
answered by justa 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
The origins of the actual hijackers isn't important.
The fact remains that much of the support for people who now want us dead is from Saudi Arabia, both in fighters and money.
The bin Laden family is from Saudi Arabia. They still hold major influence in that nation, and I'm sure not all of them have abandoned their famous relative.
And any examination of their educational system will provide a clear anti-christian dogma that is instilled in their infants, no matter how often we catch them doing this.
The facts are clear. Almost half of the people of that nation are rooting for the US to implode in a war in the middle east.
2007-04-01 02:33:49
·
answer #4
·
answered by Floyd G 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
They were recruited in Afghanastan, where they were based. Zarqwai the number 2 guy in Al qedea, spent a good time in Iraq, getting a new leg, and training Terrorist in northern Iraq under the permission of Saddam. In reality, the past 10/15 years have found terrorist groups in a 100+ countries world wide. And if you are paying attention, they're making their move in the USA. Look to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oregon, and big cities such as NYC, Chicago, Portland, and Minneapolis, to name a few. They are using our lawyers, and our constitution in spreading hate and too bring sharia law to the world. It is in its infancey here in the USA as it was 10 years ago in Europe; and looks whats happening there!
2007-04-01 02:25:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by angeline 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Go ahead and try to fit round pegs into square holes, or if you prefer, you can hunt for round holes like oil and drugs, but that still doesn't mean there aren't square pegs that you refuse to see. There are lots of groups out there, al Qaeda being probably the best known, whose members may be of any nationality. The country they get their passports from is immaterial. Where they're most active isn't. I'm sorry the world isn't simple enough for you to grasp, but I think if you look into it deeper there's certainly enough public information available for you to come to some understanding of how fourth-generation warfare has matured.
2007-04-01 02:39:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Invading Saudi Arabia, the "holy land" of the Islamic religion, would have started World War III.
2007-04-01 02:23:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Paul K 6
·
2⤊
3⤋
Most of the hi-jackers had Saudi passports, but several were from countries that, had they had a passport from that country, would have put up a red flag.
In WW2, Germany had " sleeper Spies" in this country who were " American citizens", and no one thought anything about it, because of their German ancestry. Does it make us guilty ???
Afghanistan and Iraq, along with Syria and Iran, had or have terrorist training camps. Saddam allowed it in his country and used some of these " special troops" to kill Kurds for practise against the " Great Satan".
2007-04-01 02:23:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by bigmikejones 5
·
0⤊
2⤋
Because that is where Bin Laden had his training camps where they were trained. Why would you want to go to Saudi Arabia, The only thing you would find would be their mommies and daddies.
2007-04-01 02:27:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by lumpy r 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Saudi Arabia is our business partner.
2007-04-01 02:56:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by cynical 6
·
0⤊
0⤋