Bush wasn't wrong; You liberal fairy crybabies missed the point. This is why the war was right but I'd

Question

like your feedback also; men and women, After 9/11 the USA decided go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die, to prevent our open society from being undermined by Muslim unity. There could have been other countries we hit. But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world. And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect. Every neighboring government - and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen - got the message. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about. Being part of an empire, which is what we are is about having balls and showing that we won't stand for it. Please tell me what you think?

Answer 1

You get it - judging from the answers, a lot of people don't.
Liberals, apparently, don't like confrontation - at any cost.

The terrorists now know with certainty that their indiscriminate slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women and children will no longer be done with impunity - there will be serious consequences.

Answer 2

Well... after being called a 'liberal fairy crybaby', how could I resist your polite request for feedback... you did say please after all. So let's break this down:

1. "After 9/11 the USA decided go into the heart of the Arab-Muslim world, house to house, and make clear that we are ready to kill, and to die..."
---- Wrong. We invaded Afghanistan because that's where Al Quaeda was at the time, according to the intel we had. You'll find very few that will disagree with that action.

2. "... to prevent our open society from being undermined by Muslim unity."
---- Wrong. Muslim unity is not the problem nor is it undermining our open society. Terrorism is the problem and *newsflash*... not all Muslims are terrorists and not all terrorists are Muslim. Google on IRA and "Army of God" if you think one religion has a monopoly on terrorism.

3. "But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it..."
---- Right. Since the other reasons we were told (WMDs and ties to Bin Laden/Al Quaeda) were lies, I have to give you this one. It troubles me though.

4. "And don't believe the nonsense that this had no effect."
---- Right. No WMDs, no Bin Laden... but there's been an increase of terrorist activity and a new branch of Al Quaeda that didn't exist prior to 9/11, but has gained power since we have occupied Iraq. Again, it troubles me because this is such a negative effect that's costing even more lives.

5. "Every neighboring government - and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen - got the message."
---- Undecided. I'm not clear on what you mean. If you're talking about our curious dealings with Pakistan, where we know Al Quaeda exists, then I must give you this one too.

6. If you talk to U.S. soldiers in Iraq they will tell you this is what the war was about.
---- Undecided. Is this your personal experience? A link? Because I can't tell if you're saying the soldiers are confused or if it's just you.

7. "Being part of an empire, which is what we are..."
---- Wrong. I'll admit that our actions of late do indicate 'empire building'. However, we are not an empire, we are a Republic founded on democracy.

8. "... about having balls and showing that we won't stand for it."
---- Wrong. It is devious and self-serving to invade a soverign nation based upon lies. Balls has nothing to do with it, nor does strength of character or integrity.

That's my feedback. If you're familiar with the saying "two wrongs don't make a right", then I hope you'll see where four or more do not either.

Answer 3

"Being part of an empire"?

I think you're out of you're mind, that's what I think. Having dignity and respect for human life is not being a "Liberal fairy crybaby." You republicans will take any cahnce you can get to preach about the immorality of abortion and how liberals are savages for supporting the right to choose. How are you any different? We haven't given the Iraqis anything else that they didn't already have with Saddam, and to get to essentially status quo we had to kill anywhere between 100,000 to 3,000,000 civilians. And that doesn't even include the fact that our War on Terror has done nothing but expand terrorism world wide. For every one terrorist we kill we inspire two more to take his place. I don't know anyone who would sit back and have their nation's sovereignty taken away from them while some jackass meatheads "make it clear that we are ready to kill." I'd bomb their asses too! By attacking terrorism you accomplish nothing. The people who are terrorists are ridculously poor and are doing such acts because it is the only hope they have. And what have we done? We've spent 500 billion dollars bombing the **** out of them when we could have been building infrastructure to create a realistic terrorism policy instaed of destroying it. Blood begets blood, and if supporting bringing these people up instead of pushing them back down is considered "crybaby," then I'll gladly wear that title.

Answer 4

But we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world.

Basically, we went to war for the same reason a dog licks itself then? Saddam was hardly the heart of the Muslim world--keep in mind that not all Arabs are Muslim, OK? Saddam was in no way linked to 9/11. He was no Islamic Fundamentalist. He was just a fat pig sitting on top of money and gold toilets and looking out for his own self-interest.

If Bush really cared about stopping terrorism--and not his own political agenda--he would have been attacking terrorist training camps from the beginning instead of giving Osama and his cronies a three-month head start to run away after 9/11.

Bush hasn't looked for help from the rest of the world even though terrorism affects everyone. He's going about it like the rouge cowboy that he is. It's disgusting.

Answer 5

What do I think?? First off I think we should have gotten Ben Ladin before going into Iraq!! If all the troops that were in Iraq were in Afghanistan along with there brothers and sisters in arms then we would have had Ben Ladin by now. Further more just because all of Alqueda is Muslim doesn't mean that all Muslims are part of Alqueda. IF we had nabbed Ben Ladin before we took down Saddam then the chances of Alqueda setting up in Iraq would have diminished some. We could have taken over Afghanistan before we marched into Iraq too.
Strangly enough many people have blame Clinton for not getting Ben Ladin. Yet Bush has been after Ben Ladin for almost 6 year and he hasn't gotten him either.

Answer 6

Your talk of Muslim unity only shows us that you really do not even know what you are talking about. The invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 911 attacks and had everything to do with Iraq sitting on the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves. If you are going to babble at least do a little home work and make it sound like intelligent babble.

Answer 7

Obama is NOT going to go along with this because he is actually escalating the war on terror, while calling it something else to appease his liberal peers. Obama has wars to fight too and knows that if he sets a new standard and allows Bush to be brought up on charges, then HE himself will be subject to the same standards once he becomes a former president.

Answer 8

Having balls? and Standing for what? It wasnt your war to fight until you made it. Saddam may have deserved to be punished for his wrong doing but not at the cost of thousands of dead troops and a war that probably cant be stopped easily. And maybe they hit the US because they COULD also. Saddam was killing his own people and the US said you cant do that, and then BUSH started a war and now he is doing the same damn thing that he said was wrong to begin with... killing out his own people for NO particular reason. Staying in their country might just provoke them to do another attack and if they do, thats when you deserve it yourselves. Thats REALLY bad to say but its reality. The only effect that this war has/had was/is DEAD INNOCENT TROOPS. If the they want to do another attack not one damn soul can stop them, not BUSH not THE TROOPS, NO ONE. The only thing that i thought made sense and was true in your whole question is when u said "98 percent of the terrorism is what governments let happen" but fighting and killing isnt making stuff better. The US should just call themselves terrorists too, your invading their country and space. When they invaded yours you called them terrorists.

Answer 9

I'm sorry, when did I miss the report that said Iraq was the heart of the Arab-Muslim world? And, shouldn't we have made sure that we brought Bin Laden (the guy who actually orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, he is from Saudi Arabia,by the way, and so were 9 of the 15 terrorists involved in the attacks) to justice before pursuing the entire Arab world to, supposedly, eliminate all terrorists.

Answer 10

"Muslim Unity"? WTF.

There is no war on terror. 9/11 was a plot devised by the Bush administation to take away our freedoms. Notice how quickly and quietly Homeland security bills are being passed now. Notice that we have not been attacked since 9/11, even though they harp on the "threat" almost every day. This is not due to Bush's remarkable efficiency, this is due to the illusion that there are actually terrorists out there who are truly bent on destoying us. Bin Laden was employed by the Bush administration.

You keep beating your Wardrums. Notice that you left your brain in the backseat of your car and it has fried.

Fear is a very amorphous entity. Of course, Bush and his conspirators want us:

1. Stupid.

2. Fearful

3. Unhealthy

According to Bush, there is no such thing as a conspiracy! How convenient. When a population is fearful, is it simple to control.

My advice is: don't sell yourself down Bush's river...

Answer 11

Well, unfortunately, Iraq was not a good choice. You see, we took a stable, non-terrorist harboring Country (Iraq) and turned it into a chaotic cesspool of terrorists and insurgents. Had we flexed our muscles in, say, Saudi Arabia, (where 10 of the 13 9/11 hi-jackers came from) or Syria, who are known Terrorist harbors, don't you think that would have made more sense?