were we not fighting them already? Isn't that a bonus that we can take out our enemy at the same time we are securing a country? Also why is it a failure if we don't get Bin Laden. Would you cal WWII a failure too? We didn't capture the Emperor of Japan, nor Hitler.
2007-12-04 04:37:58 · 13 answers · asked by mbush40 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
it matters because that is part of the reason al gqieda hasn't hit us here on the homeland. And I was just wondering what happens after bin laden is captured? Al Qieda will still be around, they will still attack, and they will still hate us.
2007-12-04 04:43:38 · answer #1 · answered by Tip 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
We have Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we do not need to broaden the battlefield.
It is not a bonus when you have to spent trillions of dollars more to fight Al-qaeda when you can do it much less. If we did not take out Saddam, he could be a potential ally against Al-qaeda like what Musharaf is doing in Pakistan. The question you have to ask is why are we rebuilding a country that is going to hostile to us in the future when you can actually use the money back home, ex. closing our borders ?
Why is it a failure if we dont get bin laden ? - look no further than the WTC and the thousands of dead Americans. Dead or alive, isnt that what bush promised the country ?
Hitler blow himself up in his bunker, if I am not mistaken, he would be captured soon enough and put on trial. As for the Emperor of Japan, it was part of the peace deal to not have him in custody.
2007-12-04 12:54:28 · answer #2 · answered by BrushPicks 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We created a new breeding ground for increased support of Al Qaeda, and now we are fighting that. If we ad focused all our effort on the places Al Qeada was, rather then allowing them to spread out, it would have been easier to fight them. It is a failure that we haven't got OBL because it is assumed that if all the soldiers in Iraq were instead going after OBL, we would have him now. In WW2, we did have all our soldiers fighting our enemies. An appropriate comparison would be to say that if in WW2, we didn't put a lot of soldiers to fight Germany and Japan, and instead started a new war which used most of our resources.
Under you logic, we should praise Exxon for cleaning up their oil spill. Why does it matter how the oil got there? We want to clean up oil from the water, right? And Exxon did that very successfully.
2007-12-04 12:47:45 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm sure the people of Iraq are thrilled that we brought terrorists into their country...here's a clue...there are other countries in the world besides the US. What is the point in taking out a dictator and replacing him with terrorists? Hitler shot himself....Bin Ladin sent a video out a few days ago.
2007-12-04 13:01:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this one. Maybe you should talk to the families of the over 4,000 dead Americans and ask them if it matters. It was one of the main reasons for us to invade Iraq --- among the many others used and disregarded at the administration's whim. In WWII, we had clear cut goals and objectives. Unfortunately, this war doesn't.
2007-12-04 12:50:17 · answer #5 · answered by ninaol 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hitler shot himself, and, the emporer officially surrendered, so, your comparison is off center.
Fact is, Iraq was not a threat to America, and, was an enemy of Iran.
Invading Iraq is the dumbest foreign policy mistake since sending hundreds of thousands of troops to Vietnam, without question!
2007-12-04 12:44:29 · answer #6 · answered by alphabetsoup2 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We would have lost WWII if we stormed the beaches of Normandy and sat there waiting for the German army to strengthen and come to us. We won because we took the battle to where they lived. We have made no direct offensive or assault on any Al Qaeda training camp or stronghold because they are predominately in counties that are our allies (Saudi Arabia for example)
Try to be relevant
2007-12-04 12:48:29 · answer #7 · answered by Alan S 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
it matters because gwb used that as reason to invade iraq saying they harbor and add alqeida when they didn't.yeah it may be a bonus but that country was secure before we invaded now the shonni's are killing the shites up untill this latest improvement in violence
2007-12-04 12:41:23 · answer #8 · answered by tyler "god of typos" 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
"Al Qaeda in Iraq" is a new organization with no connection to the original Al Qaeda, they just chose that name for publicity.
2007-12-04 12:58:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Sounds exactly like what the Nazis used to justify their goals.
2007-12-04 12:42:19 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋