Why is the Bush administration sending 160,000 troops to Iraq vs. 10,000 to Afganistan? Why did Bush switch focus to Saddam when Bin Laden is still at large? What is his logic behind these decisions?
2007-09-23 09:52:27 · 8 answers · asked by Phil 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
There is no logic to it.
This is a personal issue for Bush.
To bad so many tens of thousands of people had to die for it.
2007-09-23 09:57:59 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
The logic is that there is no logic. Bush used 9/11 as justification for war, then forgot all about Bin Laden and went after Saddam. Bush had a personal agenda to take out the man who was his Daddy's enemy during Desert Storm.
Saddam was a very evil man, but that does not justify a totally unwarranted invasion on our part. It's very sad that our young servicemen and women are dying for an unjust war.
2007-09-23 17:30:59 · answer #2 · answered by frenchy62 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Saddam Hassan was tough on the people of Iraq. He was a loud mouth dictator that nobody liked. But he never was a threat to the US. He talked mess but he couldn't back it up. A kid in third grade has to deal with a Saddam everyday. Osama Bin Laden actually killed people on US land. No one has gone after him. He has not had a bomb or bullet shot at him. No one has gotten close to even throw a rock at him. He sounds worse than a bully. If bush was president when the Japanese Pearl Harbor where would we be now. Cause it seems like he don't know where to fight. He might have attacked California. There was a lot of Japanese people living there then. Still is. Maybe he would have attacked China. It's an Asian country. It's near Japan. Just think in time of war if every leader took the path bush took and attacked the wrong people where would the US be now? I know if we hadn't attacked Japan they would have come back and finished the job. Maybe Osama is planning on coming back. After all no one is slightly interested in going after him. Oh I guess I am interested but the military don't have to listen to me.
2007-09-23 17:04:15 · answer #3 · answered by Nathan 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I assume the lower American troop count in Afghanistan is also partly due to abundance of allies there - all the traditional allies who kept out of the Iraq War were in Afghanistan. The bulk of the fighting is being done by British and Canadian troops, if not the local security forces.
But it's fairly obvious that Afghanistan is now a side show ever since Iraq was invaded for reasons that now seem rather dubious and selfish indeed.
2007-09-23 17:17:37 · answer #4 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because as annoying as Bin Laden's attack on the WTC was, the stabilization of the Middle East and uninterrupted supply of oil is by far the bigger concern.
Got it? Bin Laden attacked three buildings. Saddam attacked Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel & the Kurds.
2007-09-23 17:15:30 · answer #5 · answered by Phoenix Quill 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Neither. Stabalizing the region is the most important. With Saddam's reign of terror now gone, it is a difficult process for people that have never had any freedom.
2007-09-23 16:58:30 · answer #6 · answered by Robert J 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Now it is dummy
2007-09-23 17:00:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
um we already got rid of saddam.............
2007-09-23 17:37:58 · answer #8 · answered by Skyy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋