2007-12-28 03:43:50 · 16 answers · asked by . 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
OBL would be have been found long ago. Which was Bush's first mistake not pursuing him when we had him on the run. The war would probably be over by now too. The US wouldn't be so far in debt. The economy would be better. Pakistan would be electing Bhutto for a democratic society instead of a dictator. Everyone knows you have to cut the head off of the snake.
2007-12-28 03:52:22 · answer #1 · answered by Enigma 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
nothing. Musharraf would never let us attack Al Qaeda and the Taliban on Pakistan soil. It would be political suicide. Half the country supports extremists. It's a very delicate situation for the US.
The current administration worked to bring Bhutto back, and look what happened? Now what?
All you have to do is look at all the thumbs down to realize that the Liberals on this site have no clue about Pakistan. The US has little influence there, and there is absolutely no way we would have been allowed to send our troops there. Do a little research.
2007-12-28 03:47:48 · answer #2 · answered by Stereotypemebecauseyouknow 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Unfortunately, the president of Pakistan, Mussharraf, won't allow American troops on Pakistan soil. As for Iraqi oil, I don't see any decrease in the price of crude oil or gasoline at the pumps. Any oil contracts we have with Iraq occurred when Saddam was still in power. Halliburton got its foot in the door when Clinton was still president.
2007-12-28 03:56:06 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
in the beginning, it extremely is no longer our conflict, we went there as a results of fact of terrorists events, have been purely approximately completed. we've larger issues, oil, and Nuclear conflict over the North and South Korea border. Al Qaeda and the taliban, are purely approximately depleted, we are practise Iraq infantrymen to take over there very own united states of america. the biggest threat in Iraq and Iran suitable now's vehicle bombings, IED and so on. we've a threat of Nuclear attack suitable now, we are loosing further and further infantrymen by utilizing IEDS then we are of terrorist assaults. they might desire to entice close there united states of america and take it over themselfs. And have self belief me, yet another 9/11 just to place greater infantrymen interior the conflict field to die from IED assaults? No. and have you ever considered the terrorist alerts on Fox information? we've administration over terrorrist assaults interior the U. S. now. Cant also have a Zippo at an airport anymore. All footwear are to be bumped off. do no longer say that. Be greater interested in what China and North Korea are going to do, no longer yet another international locations issues, they're going to might desire to concentration on it. we gained't preserve there very own united states of america. it extremely is no longer our land. supply US a smash, the elections are much greater concerning to.
2016-10-09 07:41:19 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Al Qaeda would move somewhere else until the USA left
2007-12-28 03:47:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Al Qaeda would have lot less power and influence.
2007-12-28 03:47:56 · answer #6 · answered by mcelhinp 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Mission accomplished. Clean, Fast and Professional !
And imagine all those things that would have been voided ??
Regards.
2007-12-28 04:58:58 · answer #7 · answered by iceman 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They'd be getting blown up in the endless mazes of caves.
2007-12-28 03:49:00 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You whining liberals would be whining that we're blowing up the poor, innocent Al-qaeda in Afghan/Pakistan instead of whining that we're blowing up the poor, innocent Al-qaeda in Iraq.
2007-12-28 03:53:48 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 5⤋
We might have actually won the war on terror by now.
2007-12-28 03:48:08 · answer #10 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋