Chop off the head and the body will fall. Even my kid sister knows this. Why didn't Bush decide to go after the head of al quaeda instead of sparking a fire in Iraq?
2007-07-24 09:59:42 · 16 answers · asked by bbbbriggs04 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
who is hunter thompson?
2007-07-24 10:03:47 · update #1
lol @ il cons. you can't see that if we killed or captured osama then al quaeda wouldn't think they could get away with murder. are you that dumb?
2007-07-24 10:11:05 · update #2
refer to the last addition daniel
2007-07-24 10:12:48 · update #3
uhh have you seen osomma
on oprah lately ?
or hosting mtv spring break ?
no I didnt think so
2007-07-24 10:02:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Bush had some weird psychological need to outdo his father. Bush Sr. actually warned his son that invading Iraq would be a disaster, but you know how it is with ex-cokehead alcoholic children of privilege; they get religion and suddenly they think that they're on a mission from God.
While I think that capturing Osama Bin Ladin would be an excellent thing, the nature of how terrorist organizations are set up (independent cells) would probably not incapacitate Al Qaeda.
The Iraq war was a huge mistake and is a huge tragedy.
2007-07-24 17:06:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
1. Al Qaeda is still strong because Clinton saved Obama's life 8 times, so they could be buddies.
2. And because the Democrats surrendered to Al Qaeda and are now encouraging the terrorists to Defeat the USA.
2007-07-24 17:06:50 · answer #3 · answered by wolf 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That may be the most naive question I have read on here yet. Do you think Al Qaeda is all about Osama Bin Laden? If he weren't in charge, someone else would be. Al Qaeda is all about radical Islam. There is always someone to take his place.
Capturing him would be about justice, at this point, not about stopping Al Qaeda. I know that all of the families of 9/11 victims want that justice, and they deserve it, but don't be naive enough to believe that killing him or capturing him will change the ideology of the religious zealouts.
2007-07-24 17:05:24 · answer #4 · answered by Rich people employ me 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
How do you propose he do that? Do you *honestly* think that we haven't been looking for Bin Laden? We have killed many of his top commanders and he hasn't appeared on video for some time. How do you know he's not already dead? In addition, taking out one man isn't going to take down the entire organization when someone else will just take his place.
Think, man, think!!
2007-07-24 17:12:07 · answer #5 · answered by Daniel A: Zionist Pig 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea talk about emboldening the enemy. How much more emboldening do they need than knowing Bush couldn't capture their leader. They now think Osama is a messiah or second in command next to Allah.
2007-07-24 17:08:20 · answer #6 · answered by Enigma 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No.
It's because we've spent all of our time and effort in Iraq, rather than going after the people who attacked us.
Even if there are other terrorists in Iraq, that's no reason to ignore the Al Qaeda main leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
2007-07-24 17:03:26 · answer #7 · answered by coragryph 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Your kid sister knew Hunter S. Thompson?
Did she paint portraits of Barbara Streisand?
2007-07-24 17:03:11 · answer #8 · answered by truthisback 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, it's because the liberal/socialist left decided to use the war and present it like Viet Nam just to gain power back. They don't seem to realize that if we lose the war there won't be any power to get back. lol
coragryph -- we are STILL there in Afghanistan, we never left. lol
2007-07-24 17:08:12 · answer #9 · answered by Miss Kitty 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
He didn't pull the trigger cause he needed him for The Terror Times Bush planned for.
2007-07-24 17:05:50 · answer #10 · answered by ? 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
that's exactly the same way i feel. I think the war on iraq had little to do with al qaeda and more to do with private interests
2007-07-24 17:03:26 · answer #11 · answered by ericktravel 6 · 3⤊ 2⤋