PLEASE! Explain to me when we decided to not go after those responsible for 9/11, how this war on terror that spawned after 9/11 didn't include finding Bin Laden?!
2007-07-02 05:21:24 · 15 answers · asked by hichefheidi 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
we oufnd Saddam in a hole in the ground. Bin Laden requires DIALYSIS on a regular basis, not to mention that the reason we haven't found him is because we aren't even looking for him anymore!
2007-07-02 05:28:22 · update #1
lol, Philip, apparently we CAN'T do more than one thing at a time, since BUSH DISBANDED THE GROUP LOOKING FOR BIN LADEN. Address the issues, and stop trying to insult me with your 'liberal' assumptions
2007-07-02 05:47:34 · update #2
yes. that would have been the first mission, and I would not care who wanted to get in the way, I would not have rest until his body was found. where was Bush's determination then?
2007-07-02 05:25:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
I believe you really need to wake up and see things.....There really isnt any Bin Laden;persay. There maybe a person with that name,but he is really no more than a myth. Just an evil entity created by the goverment to keep the countries intrest in 2 occupations. Without someone to blame.....There would be no justification. Do your homework,and it will all come out in front of your eyes. 9/11 and both occupations are the blame of Zionisim.
2007-07-02 12:32:17 · answer #2 · answered by markh31057 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We went after him in Afghanistan, and we still have troops there looking for him.
But where Bin Laden is thought to be is in the remote and has little infrastructure. Remote wilderness areas in a land-locked country with little surrounding infrastructure are not suitable for significant or sustained presence of troops.
It's called "logistics". It's what has prevented a greater presence of troops in Afghanistan since we first went in there.
2007-07-02 12:40:37 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We can do more than one thing at a time.
We went after the people behind 9/11. Crushed the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Chasing Osama from one rat nest to another.
Then, we took out another threat to us. I know you all think Saddam was a choirboy, so that's why you should let the grownups take care of foreign policy.
2007-07-02 12:26:37 · answer #4 · answered by Philip McCrevice 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Just because we don't have Bin Laden doesn't mean we haven't found/killed most of Al Queda. How many children are abducted in public are still missing? It's pretty hard but we shouldn't give up.
2007-07-02 12:25:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Someone in a position of authority has worked very very hard protecting him.
Go Team Bush Go
2007-07-02 12:36:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I would have a better chance of finding you, and More information as well. Saddam was easy he was poor and became rich. Osama was rich and gave it all up, it is hard to beat a man like that let alone find him
2007-07-02 12:25:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
They must have some sorda agenda behind Not taking him. Just like when Bill Clinton let him go on two different occasions... Why didn't he take him?
2007-07-02 12:32:32 · answer #8 · answered by Wyco 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I sometimes wonder if he's already dead (due to kidney disease). That would make it tough to find him and kind of make us look stupid for tyring. Could be there's some cohorts of his laughing their butts off.
2007-07-02 12:39:19 · answer #9 · answered by MEL T 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bill Clinton did nothing against al qaeda even after:
-two african embassies were bombed
-the u.s.s. cole was attacked
-he knew right where he was in sudan
2007-07-02 12:28:36 · answer #10 · answered by infobrokernate 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋