The war on terror is as much of a farce (if not more) than the war on drugs.
Both wars, ultimately are paid for in both blood and treasure by those who benefit the least from society.
2007-08-03 12:27:47
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
If we had found out no longer something in the previous 4 and a one million/2 years of being in Iraq i could consider you from the initiating. If this became early 2003 and Turkey became hoping to invade Iraq with us and Bush asked for them to hold off, that would desire to have been hypocritical. Now, with larger know-the way it would desire to be a found out place, an information that added gamers in this mess will make it exponentially worse and impossible to fulfill anybody's objectives, including the Turk's. nonetheless, i'm no longer confident that such is the reasoning in the back of the request. i think of that's only that their involvement will make our place that somewhat extra painful. as a result, i might desire to agree that the stance is hypocritical.
2016-10-09 04:15:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Certainly not. Bin Laden is still at large. Zawihiri is still at large. Al Qaeda as an organization is as strong as it has ever been, due in no small part to the Iraq war. The Taliban is making a comeback in Afghanistan, and jihadist groups are growing in several failed or failing states: Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Lebanon.
2007-08-03 12:47:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by A M Frantz 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
No he did not but with the constant delay Saddam was imposing on the WMD investigations, the threat picked up by not just our intelligence agency but every major intelligence agency around the war that he was in the market for products to be used in nuclear weapons and the work internally was proceeding at a fevered pitch we could not allow him to continue in light of the 9-11 attacks which changed everything in that now a threat must always be taken seriously.
2007-08-04 03:39:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by ALASPADA 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
No, until the Saudi government is toppled and Wahhabism is outlawed, terrorism will not die.
Unfortunately, the wealthy in Saudi Arabia are an important part of the Bush Administration's base - corporate shareholders and big shots in the oil industry.
Saudis own somewhere between seven and ten percent of America.
2007-08-03 12:37:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Yes. Osama Bin Laden is no longer important. Iraq attacked America on 9/11.
2007-08-03 12:31:01
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
2⤋
Hummmmm - well lets look at this, we are fighting the "real" enemies and then feel a need to move on over to Iraq. Are we suppose to just tell the "real" enemies that we need a time out, because we have another engagement?
I think in times of war, this type of thing happens, you know, where bullets come flying from other sources, so you have to then move on over in that direction and take care of business.
Just my opinion.
2007-08-03 12:29:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by ♥ ♥Be Happi♥ ♥ 6
·
1⤊
4⤋
No, its been years, and Osama is still free.
I wouldn't care if the rest of the Bush years were idyllic, the fact that the man who planned and danced at the thought of three thousand dead Americans still being alive makes me mad.
2007-08-03 12:35:11
·
answer #8
·
answered by justa 7
·
2⤊
2⤋
Bush has never finished a job in his life - take a look at his military records.
2007-08-03 12:27:56
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Illogical. You should have been around in World War II. Either Germany or Japan would have been running around free while you attacked the other.
2007-08-03 12:46:41
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋