Probably Saddam Hussein was more effective in making Iraq out of bounds to Al qaeda etc. His liquidation has brought endless strife, civil war and free entry to outside insurgents.
2007-07-24 05:11:34 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Civic Participation
No you will never contain it i wish we could but it is stronger than we would like it to be.
2007-07-24 05:14:54 · answer #1 · answered by kissmeagainnow 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bin Laden attacked the USA, so eliminating Al Qaeda and its supporters, the radical Taliban, would have contained terrorism. Afghanistan was ready to turn a corner, and many militia and tribal groups were cooperating with the US. The USA could have occupied Afghanistan with a heavy troop presence for a while, providing a secure environment for a new government and business development. Instead, it more or less abandoned Afghanistan to attack a country that had absolutely no plans to attack the USA. The National Intelligence Estimate report says that the Iraq invasion and occupation has created more terrorists, and that Al Qaeda is finalizing plans to attack the USA again. The USA chose the path to the worst possible result, and alienated most of the rest of the world in the process.
2007-07-24 14:04:19 · answer #2 · answered by Muscat 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Elimination of Hussein removed the iron hand needed to keep three separate countries united as one when they don't want to be.
Eliminating Bin Laden would accomplish nothing, since Al Zawahiri is the real brains behind his organization. All it will do is create a martyr.
The only thing that will stop terrorism is to change the hearts and minds, and no elimination of one person will do this.
2007-07-24 12:17:10 · answer #3 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Well, it would be a start. Your information is flawed, Saddam did not make Iraq off limits to terrorists, he invited them to train there. This whole topic will take years to decades to work out. There are no easy solutions. This "strife" you refer to will ease when the Iraqi people get organized enough to stand on their own; until then they NEED our help. Get used to that fact and you will be a much happier person.
2007-07-24 20:47:59 · answer #4 · answered by Al S 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think that the problem is going to be fixed with the elimination of one or two people. If anyone thinks that, they are seriously delusional.
To eliminate such an issue, it is going to take a lot of education and changing minds of others. Taking out a couple of men will only reinforce the thoughts of the Evil Empire to the ones that followed the men removed. . .
2007-07-24 12:58:11 · answer #5 · answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You are making an assumption that I don’t believe many people make. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are visible leaders, so elimination of them discourages and demoralizes those who follow them.
I don’t believe Saddam Hussein’s death brought about endless strife, etc.
2007-07-24 12:31:36 · answer #6 · answered by sparky_coffee 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Well done on using the terms "liquidation" and "elimination." It really shows how it doesn't matter if you get rid of the monsters, because to do so you have to make yourself into a monster who no longer sees killing and death, but only liquidation.
2007-07-24 12:56:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
They both are/were monsters. You need to stay away from monsters, leave them and their clones alone and everything will be ok.
So they support terrorism... so? Big deal, turn off the TV.
2007-07-24 22:56:28 · answer #8 · answered by fefe k 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No matter how many terrorist leaders, or those thought of as undesirables are taken out of action, there will be others to replace them.
2007-07-24 12:15:48 · answer #9 · answered by aj's girl 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Words like 'elimination' are only used by terrorists
2007-07-24 12:14:41 · answer #10 · answered by Ya-sai 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋