why were we successful in catching Shadam Hesheen but we were not in catching Osama Binladin?

Question

In my opinion Sadam is less dangerous to the US than Binladdin is.Catching him was a waste of time it gave al kida more time to think of a way to do more terrorit acts but Sadam is an easy target Binladin is the big fish they only got the small fish.What did Sadam have to do with 9/11.It makes no sense any way

Answer 1

Saddam had enemies in the area, all he could do was hide underground in his own country. Bin Laden has friends in Pakistan that he could quickly hide. Who knows that OBL is not dead. We don't. 9/11 and Iraq are 2 separate wars. The only thing they have in common is that we are in a war against terrorism. Al Queda is a terror organization, and Saddam was a terrorist to his own people. Iraq harbored many terrorists including members of Al Queda. There is more terrorism in Iraq than anywhere else, so we are in the right spot.

Answer 2

To directly answer your question- Saddam was more accessable to get to, but just as dangerous. He used WMD on his own people, violated 17 resolutions. His reign of terror on his own people was horrible to say the least. As for Osama- He's living like a goat in a cave with not much of a life. That said, one day we will kill him. As far as Saddom not having anything to do with 911... Well he was a terrorist, and we're in an all out war against all terrorists. Hey, Hillary disagrees with you on Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda.

Answer 3

he's honestly lifeless or captured. He has been because of the fact the bombing of Tora Bora. All next video tapes released because that day have been a CIA double. They proceed this charade as an excuse to stay in contact interior the Afghan war, so super enterprise can income. In consequence, all of those in contact in pulling the strings are what undemanding sense would call retailers of dying.

Answer 4

two major possibilities...he was set up, or our side got lucky and informant intelligence was useful.

your concern about big fish vs. little fish misses one critical point. in any command and control environment taking out middle management is more disruptive than taking out the top leader. a good example of this is our inability to get an Iraqi army up to speed. when the army was disbanded, it's central core (captains,lieutenants and especially non-coms) was lost. they are the glue that holds an organisation together.

Answer 5

Because the U.S. is friends with Bin Laden and his family. They never intended on catching him. When 9/11 went down they moved his family out of the country they were in on a private jet, so they could be safe. At one point we trained Bin Laden and that's why when you see pictures of him he has our army jacket on.

Answer 6

i see that benladen is an intelligenet man as he do what he want but in the same time he was far, hidden.so the u.s. cannt catch him.and this today brove that this is the best way to face the united states
but about saddam he is afailer bresident from the begining as from first he began his awrong strategic so it was bredictable from the bigining
this is my opinion

Answer 7

Pakistan.

Answer 8

because if we had caught bin ladden then we could not have used the 9/11 incident to invade Iraq, and that was the first reason we were given in invading Iraq, then it was WMD, and now I believe it is to stop a civil war!

Answer 9

Let's just find an approximate location of where he is and nuke it. That'll take care of him and most other members of al-Qaeda.

Answer 10

put it this way every time we find out where he is he finds out and moves (for a time we thought he was killed