Personally I believe that the so-called "al Qaeda in Iraq" is exactly zero threat to the United States. But even if one did believe in such a threat - who's to blame for creating it?
2007-07-24 11:31:53 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is radical Islamist belief that infidels do not belong in the "Holy Land" that is to blame and that's who creates it, when will you hippies get it?
2007-07-24 11:35:40 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Do you really think Bush supporters will accept responsibility for anything that they screwed up? We all know it was Bush's fault and that he continues to lie about the so called threat. Even our CIA and the Iraq Study Group report recently said that outside al queda terrorists that are based in Iraq are less than 10% of the actual terrorism that is being committed. Al Queda is now made up of mostly Sunni Iraq natives. And, even some in the Sunni circles are not happy with al qaeda being in their country or working in their neighborhoods and are hunting them down. If we pulled out from Iraq today, I really doubt Al qaeda would get much of a foothold in the country. There is far too much diversity and Iraqis, no matter what sect of Islam they belong to, are far too proud a people to let al qaeda take over their country.
2007-07-24 11:50:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Let's see: With Saddam in Iraq, no al-Qaeda there and no Americans getting killed; after Bush had Saddam taken out, lots of al-Qaeda in Iraq and closing in on 4,000 Americans getting killed.
No one is defending Saddam Hussein. But there are worse things to have than Saddam Hussein running Iraq. Bill Clinton proved that a contained Saddam was not a threat to America. Come to think of it, so did the elder George Bush. The father was right, and the son was wrong.
Weird: Dubya makes his father look like a competent, in-touch realist; and he makes Clinton look like an honest man.
2007-07-24 11:42:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would say Bush, because Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or 9/11.
There was no reason to invade Iraq! Bush even lied about the WMD's!
I can't believe that there are people that still support this man.
2007-07-24 12:07:00 · answer #4 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
poor Saddam is not the fault that America has al qaeda. why its probably his fault that Katrina hit as well. why does America want a guy with facial hair to blame for everything always. stalin hitler. and so on. seems to be not hated by americans and be a tyrant have no facial hair and you can do what you like. maybe Castro should have shaved and they would have embraced the revolution
2007-07-24 12:03:59 · answer #5 · answered by BUST TO UTOPIA 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al Qaeda may not have even had a presence in Iraq before the war, but it's where they want to be now so they can kill as many Americans as they can. They'll keep gathering there as long as our troops are there.
2007-07-24 11:44:01 · answer #6 · answered by ConcernedCitizen 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Al Qaeda in Iraq is a great idea because I have a problem with Al Qaeda in New Jersey. So yeah, you're right, Al Queda in Iraq is less of threat.
2007-07-24 11:38:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
I'm not a Bush fan, but al Qaeda is not his fault. Yes, Saddam contributed to their terror in many ways but truthfully what they fight for has been reasons for war since the beginning of time. Read your Bible. They were fighting then and will be fighting till the end.
2007-07-24 11:37:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
El Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before we invaded. Therefore it wasn't anything to do with Saddam.
Kinda narrows it down doesn't it?
2007-07-24 11:57:36 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Al Qaeda's. Why blame other than the bad guys?
2007-07-24 11:35:45 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
US/ Bush Administration is the biggest threat to peace.
2007-07-24 11:40:32 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋