During Desert Storm the world was on our side, including most Muslim people, when we and the UN went into Kuwait to win it back from a foreign invader.
After 9-11 the world was on our side, including most Muslin people, when we went into Afghanistan after Osama and those actually responsible for the Twin Towers attacks.
When we had Osama cornered and surrounded we suddenly decided to pull back, leaving Osama’s capture in the hands of local war lords, and decided to focus on Saddam. At the time Saddam was not a serious threat to us or the world. He was just another piss ant little dictator in another little country.
Still, we all but deserted catching Osama so that we could invade Iraq.
Now, much of the world has turned against us, including most Muslims and this time our motives are questioned by all.
Instead of catching Osama we're occupying two invaded countries and creating resentful new enemies every day.
Or could I be wrong? What do you honestly think?
2007-10-10 13:35:12 · 14 answers · asked by Doc Watson 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think you answered your own question. When is it proper to attack any Country that was or is not posing a threat to us? This whole war was planed BEFORE Bush became Dictator of the U.S. And now with Turkey posturing at the Iraq border, is the U.S going to fight Turkey because we have troops in the area?
The lack of interest in Osama by Bush is not an oversight, it is a planed program to bring fascist policy to the U.S. To do away with the Constitution and what this administration considers unfair business laws and taxes, (rights for workers and corp. taxes as well as taxes on the wealthy). Oppression of the under-privileged in any country is thought to keep their people in line. Yet, such action only fuels descent and eventual uprising of the masses. This administration is using Iraq as an experiment for it's policies. Iraq is an occupied country, militarily as well as politically. Afghanistan is a puppet also, the capture of Osama was turned over to them with the full knowledge that they were not capable of carrying out the mission. To capture Osama is to put Bush in jeopardy of prosecution.
2007-10-10 14:23:19 · answer #1 · answered by Mr.D 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Seems you've summed it up in a nutshell.
There are a heckuva lot of "bad guys" we aren't going after because it's not in the U.S.'s financial interest to do so. Kim Jong Il makes Saddam Hussein look like a reasonable man, but nobody talks about doing anything about North Korea--and they DO have weapons.
By the way, Bushonly, you need to get your facts straight. Even Dubya knows Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11. In fact, 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi, and the rest were from Iran--note the difference in the letter there--and Pakistan.
2007-10-11 01:40:09 · answer #2 · answered by VeggieTart -- Let's Go Caps! 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
BECAUSE
who funded bush Jrs first oil company?
Who was Bush Sr meeting with on 9/11 attacks. During the actual attacks.
Answer to both -- the Bin Laden Family.
Who was flown out while there was a no fly order in the U.S.
Bin Laden Family
Who has Bush always used, and protected?
Bin Laden.
Recently, who was found to leak the video tape process that was used by FOXNEWS, where somehow We would get BIN LADEN tapes before anyone else?
Bin Laden and BUSH have been in business together for decades.
They still are in business...thats why we havent found them...
thats why we wont ever find him
Thats why we shifted away from Bin Laden., and focused on Saddam.
But then again, saddam was always the target -- Bin Laden was merely the diversion
2007-10-10 13:41:27 · answer #3 · answered by writersbIock2006 5 · 5⤊ 3⤋
We have tried diplomacy, ignoring Muslims and Arabs living under dictatorships and it has gotten us nothing but enemies and terrorist attacks.
We have to do two things:
1) Reject 100% dictatorships like Iran. The people of Iran are some of the most pro-American people in the world. In the case of the Iranian dictatorship we have stood by our ideals of rejecting oppression of people and they respect us for it.
2) We need to help to spread freedom and capitalism to as many people as we can.
If we leave Afghanistan and Iraq they will fall to Islamo fascist leaving us in a worse place then we are now. We can discuss errors of the past but that is pointless finger pointing.
2007-10-10 13:50:59 · answer #4 · answered by sfavorite711 4 · 0⤊ 3⤋
You are right -
although I don't even think we had that
much support initially.
We were very very wrong to go to
bat for the American's-
and I hope we don't have suffer the
consequences.
2007-10-10 13:42:49 · answer #5 · answered by Sandy 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Hmmm,I seem to remember Muslim terrorists attacking us for quite awhile now. Oh and btw,Paris had a series of bombings by Muslims in the 90's.
2007-10-10 13:40:44 · answer #6 · answered by Tin Foil Fez 5 · 1⤊ 5⤋
I agree with you 100% and I agree with Alan Greenspan when he says that the invasion of Iraq was about oil and not terrorism.
2007-10-10 13:41:31 · answer #7 · answered by tangerine 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
We have become very arrogant, and hence disliked by many.
2007-10-10 16:21:51 · answer #8 · answered by Marguerite 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
well... it made us look stupid... I don't know about the "bad guy"...
it was a great marketing point for the terrorists though...
2007-10-10 13:45:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Iraq attacked America on 9/11! Mr. BinLadin is of no importance, forget about him.
2007-10-10 13:41:59 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 7⤋