Do you think a better option would have been to pursue Bin Laden and Alquaeda into Pakistan???
2007-07-24 04:33:19 · 27 answers · asked by ballerb j 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No, I think we should have gone after Bin Laden! Why is he still free? Are we even still looking for him? Amazing we found Saddam in a hole in the ground and still can't find Bin Laden!
2007-07-24 04:37:52 · answer #1 · answered by Lisa C 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
I was opposed to the invasion to begin with. I have nothing against invading countries that attacked us. There was no evidence Iraq was connected with any attack, and the evidence they posed a threat was exceedingly thin. We now know that evidence was false and fabricated. Yet surprisingly few americans are aware of the Downing Street Memo, or that this war was launched on false pretexts.
Back before WWII lots of germans supported Adolf Hitler too. Before I support killing innocent civilians (we have waxed more than 600,000 innocent iraqis since this war began), I like the moral assurance I'm killing them for a good cause. Oil revenues does not make the rank of good causes for war.
2007-07-24 11:40:17 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No I wouldn't have. They had nothing to do with 911. Al-Queda wasn't in Iraq until after we invaded the country. I would have stay focused on Afghanistan & try to find Bin Laden
2007-07-24 11:54:15 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes to invade again. no to invading pakistan. the difference between the two is that we have a leader in pakistan that is against radicalism. saddam wasn't. only time will tell whether or not the correct decision was made. 5 years is not enough time to determine that. progress is being made despite what you see on tv or read in the papers. think about it, what sells? violence, death...even if there wasn't a war going on, news if FILLED with bad occurences. that's what sells. i NEVER hear of the good things we are doing in Iraq..nor too much locally....i worked for a local paper that mainly reported the good news happening in the community, and it went bankrupt. my point is, what happens when a carjacking is reported on the other side of town? many people stay away from that area. nothing so much as a jaywalking may occur in the same spot again, but it influences some people's decision based on what their news reports. we just need to stop taking media so seriously. much of what is reported is spun to MAKE MONEY.
lisa c- we are still looking for bin laden.... no one knows whether he is dead or alive
nantanovich- so much of what you said is WRONG. the reason why germans supported the nazis was because they LOST WWI and adolf and company preached that they would return Germany to its former world dominating form.. read your history books. secondly, this war was NOT about oil. has your gas prices dropped since we invaded? didn't think so. thirdly, saddam DID have WMD's. he used gas agents to kill THOUSANDS of kurds. that's pretty dangerous in my book. not to mention he kept UN inspectors out continually... one of the reasons we had speculation he was up to no good. fourthly, the 600,000 civilians you speak of... that number is hard to identify. don't know how you think that WE killed those people. especially since radicals LOVE to barracade themselves behind women and children and hide in residential areas.... AND like to strap bombs to themselves and run into malls and such. place blame where blame is due. stop fabricating and spinning facts.
bunky- you really think al-qaida wasn't in Iraq pre-invasion?? lord, WE have had al-qaida in the US before the invasion, you really think they didn't have any operatives in Iraq?? use common sense man.
2007-07-24 11:51:31 · answer #4 · answered by jasonsluck13 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Actually I would invade Iran first, We have had a greivance with them Long before we had one with Iraq.
Iran has supported terrorists ever since 1980.
Hunt Bin Ladin
Take out Afganistan
Take out Iran
Take out Iraq
Take out Syria
Take out North Korea
Take out Cuba
Those are by far the leaders in supporting terrorists.
2007-07-24 11:43:45 · answer #5 · answered by Michelle 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i didn't invade iraq, in fact i was somewhat stunned when president bush decided, in the middle of a hot pursuit of criminal elements in afghanistan, to turn and attack a country which had no involvement in 911, "weapons of mass destruction" or not.
we only asked one thing of this president, find bin laden. this he has been unable to do over the course of nearly six years. and not just unable to, he has outright refused to be bothered with the task in his pursuit of the PNAC agenda.
2007-07-24 11:54:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You what I think? I think that we just needed a good enough reason to take out Saddam. That's the only reason we haven't taken out some other evil leaders--we haven't found anything that would make it something we could get a little support on. Thanks goodness Saddam is no longer ruling with an iron fist, and all other evil leaders should be on notice--give us a reason, and we'll be there with guns blazing.
2007-07-24 11:40:16 · answer #7 · answered by Trav 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I would pursue Bin Laden and any other known terrorists for sure!!!!. I don't think there is ever any fixing Iraq so I would choose to change that. I would not attack again.
2007-07-24 11:36:35 · answer #8 · answered by Amber 3 · 4⤊ 3⤋
If the objective was to eliminate radical Islam, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan would have been more appropriate targets.
2007-07-24 11:39:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. Yes. Then Saudi Arabia because that is where Radical Islam is getting funding and protection.
2007-07-24 11:43:13 · answer #10 · answered by Mother 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋