Bin Laden is the preeminent terrorist on the planet. 6 years later and he's still running loose... and Bush isn't concerned. What's a war on terrorism that doesn't make its greatest priority the most dangerous terrorist on Earth? Or wasn't the collapse of the WTC and the more than 2600 lives lost that day...enough proof of that?
2007-10-31 06:32:16 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That has been my point for the past 6 years or so...If we get Bin Laden, the war would be moot, & then Bush & Chaney wouldn't make as much money, because they would have to get people out of the Mid East. They don't want to do that!
2007-10-31 06:37:51 · answer #1 · answered by fairly smart 7 · 9⤊ 5⤋
If Bush isn't concerned with confronting the doctrine of Islam, which is the problem, and continues to disguise this and mislead Americans into thinking this is about a tactic called "terrorism", then we can't take his "war on terror" seriously. The term is framed intentionally as a way to justify imperialism- an endless unwinnable "war" that makes alot of money for a handful of rich people at the expense of the rest of us, while making us all less safe.
2007-10-31 13:51:49 · answer #2 · answered by Earl Grey 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Great question. Good luck getting a solid answer, because the truth is...the "war on terror" is just another excuse thrown out by the Bush admin....remember the original reason for going to Iraq was WMD. However, when we didn't find those it changed to removing Saddam from power...but not what? This is a war without cause, direction or reason. If we were really concerned with capturing terrorists and making our country safe, we would be spending every resource we have finding Bin Laden...especially after what he has done to this country.
2007-10-31 13:41:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 3⤋
Haven't you heard? Bush has already got Bin Laden - they are sitting around Bush's pool down on the ranch now drinking Pina Coladas and laughing about all the fools they have killed.
2007-10-31 13:47:08 · answer #4 · answered by airmonkey1001 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
There were only 19 terrorists and over 3000 civilians (unarmed, unprepared, unaware) that's about 158 civilians per terrorists in one day. When playing checkers and I put an opponent against the wall of the board I leave it there to worry about the rest of the moving pieces. Eventually even that piece against the wall has to move and I can take it out without loss to my own, and I know right where it is at the entire time. I like the idea of attacking those who can now attack us and take out UBL at our convenience.
2007-10-31 13:39:20 · answer #5 · answered by rance42 5 · 8⤊ 2⤋
In WW2, we faced a real threat. The fascists of the world united and were threatening the entire planet with genocide and global conquest.
The Left and the Right, the Capitalist and the Communist, and everyone else united to face this global threat.
Drastic measures were taken:
Rationing
Taxes
Nationalization of businesses
Cut to today, if someone even mentions a tax cut for today's world, everybody goes crazy.
Today:
Divisive social issues
Tax Cuts
No-Bid contracts
Nominations of buddies to high level posts
Record amounts of vacation time for Bush
Bush calls this war the "Battle for Civilization", how can we take him seriously when he does so little to demonstrate how serious it may be?
2007-10-31 13:41:38 · answer #6 · answered by ck4829 7 · 7⤊ 3⤋
the Full court press on islamic fascism is what is needed, Bin Laden is a figure head, as is Mahmood and was Hussein.
I think OBL is clamoring for support, he has the best PR of any person on the planet. The Liberal US media. Back in FDR's day, the media would have been jailed. But they continue to be given a free pass on their sedition.
I don't doubt Bush is concerned with OBL, but dealing with the likes of Turban Durbin, Pelosi, Reid, and other idiots on the left and acting like a lib in domestic affairs to placate these scum kind of distracts him.
2007-10-31 14:01:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 6⤋
Clinton had Bin Laden the man responsible for the 2600 lives you mention, and turned him loose. Did we capture the Japanese Emperor, or Hitler? Bin Laden will either die, is dead already, or will be captured at some point. I agree why waste the efforts to get him. Hitler was responsible for more than 2600 Americans, and we didn't get him either.
2007-10-31 13:50:30 · answer #8 · answered by mbush40 6 · 0⤊ 6⤋
And is exactly why I don't take Bush's Global War on Terror⢠seriously.
If a little more effort and concern was shown on the part of Bush & Co. to capture the worst mass murderer in US history, then I might pay a little more attention and be a little more concerned.
But until then......
2007-10-31 13:38:17 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 4⤋
But...but...but....wasn't Saddam the one responsible for 9/11? [sarcasm]
2007-10-31 22:59:18 · answer #10 · answered by catrionn 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋