If the US invading Afghanistan and Iraq was wrong, what should we have done instead?

Question

OK, I get it. Bish is the devil, blah blah blah.

So in the Alternate Universe where Gore became the President, how would he/should he have handled 9/11 and Hussein refusing to allow UN inspections?

EDIT: Never had WMDs? What did Saddam use to gas Iran and the Kurds? Kool-Aid powder?

PS
UN Resolution 1441. Ever hear of it?

Answer 1

Nobody said invading Afghanistan was wrong, we were after Al-qaida. Invading Iraq was wrong - they never had WMD, no connections to A--qaida and no direct threat to USA from Saddam Hussein.

Liquidate al-qaida in Afghanistan, not spread throughout the whole Middle East like Bush did.

Answer 2

I believe invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do. Al Qaeda headed by Osama Bin Laden, perpetrators of 9/11 were there. I don't believe we should have gone into Iraq. That country was no threat to us. They had no WMD and that was reported by the UN inspectors. Saddam was a factor of stability in the region. By upsetting that stability we have a more dangerous Middle East than at any time in modern history. By the way Saddam and Iraq had NOTHING to do with Al Qaed or 9/11. Saddam and Bin Laden hated each other. We should have concentrated on Afghanistan/Pakistan and the Tora Bora mountains where Osama's been hidin'.

Since Bush said before 2000 election that he wanted to get Saddam and Gore did not one can presume that we would not have gone into Iraq predicated on lies as we did.

Answer 3

Invading Afghanistan was IMHO justifiable. The folks who had perpetrated the 9/11 attacks were operating out of that country apparently with the full support of the government there. The execution of that effort however was appallingly inept. Since we screwed up A-stan but needed to divert attention away from that fact AND since certain individuals brought back from the dead from a previous administration had an axe to grind and percieved we had unfinished business in Iraq, we got that dog and pony show. So instead of fighting a war on terror we let the terrorists go in A-stan - and have stopped even trying to find Bin Laden. Then we spent a trillion dollars and 4,000+ American lives (and probably 100k Iraqi lives) to turn Iraq into the worlds largest terrorist training camp. Brilliant.

Answer 4

As usual, this is a distortion of what critics of Bush's actions have said.

Hardly anyone disputes the validity of invading Afghanistan--we were going after the people who actually attacked us.

But Iraq did not attack us. Bush LIED. That invasion was unjustified. Period--there are no excuses for invading a country that had not attacked us and had no ties to the people who did.

The only thing wrong with the Afghan campaign is that Bush pullled our troops out and allowed al-Qaida, the Taliban, and Osama to escape.

But Haliburton, Backwater, and Exxon are making record profits. Mission Accomplished.

Answer 5

I remember when Bush announced he was going after Iraq, there were those on the left that said Iran was the problem. Now, the are condemning Bush for "saber rattling" at Iran. They didn't, and still don't, see that if we are in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are in a much better position to deal with Iran. Just the presence of our military may be all it takes. After all, Iran "gave up it's nuclear weapons programs in 2003". Anyone remember what happened in 2003?

ADDITION: To those that say "Bush lied..." to believe that, you must believe that not only Bush lied, but Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy and the other democratic senators (except Obama), France, Germany, Great Britain, Russia, Israel, and the United Nations all lied. And don't forget the biggest liar of all, Sadaam. It was he that tried to "buffalo" the ENTIRE world by claiming that he had WMD and wasn't afraid to use them (as he did on numerous occations). Tell me, if the NY Times can find someone to leak intelligence secrets about interogation methods, don't you think they would have found a "deepthoat" before the invasion? Being wrong on intelligence doesn't mean a lie was told.

ADDITION to Joe T:
Look who's still following the far left talking points. Britain still stands by their intell asessment. Before the invasion, it was a known fact that Iraq had enough chemical factories to produce enough insecticide for a country with farming operations larger than the US. Do you know what nerve agent is also used for? RAID. Raid is a diluted form of nerve agent. Can you explain the canisters found a while back that contained chemical weapons. Don't tell me that they were so old they could hurt anyone. There are still caves in Europe that people can't go into because they have nerve gas stored and has leaked. canisters from WW l. Still think those found in Iraq are harmless. I suppose that you think 15,000 centrifuges are needed for Iran to produce only enough nuclear fuel for power plants. BTW, how is it that you don't get after Hillary, or Biden, or any of the democrats that claimed before the invasion that Sadaam had WMD. I guess that it's OK for dems to be wrong, they never lie.

Answer 6

Hussein didn't refuse UN inspections.

They went there and TOLD US THERE WERE NO WMDs

Did you get that?

THEY TOLD US THERE WERE NO WMDs.

Did you get that YET???


You got suckered.

But to answer your question, we should have struck Afghanistan, wiped out the nests of terrorists, then left, and definitely NOT invaded Iraq. Iraq is not our problem. We kicked their *** and defanged tehm in Gulf War I when they DID commit aggression.

As it turns out, they were harmless.

Bush lied, 3800 died.

he got his little war and now we all own it, don't we?

And you can see that people like Madd Texan (below) still believe all the propaganda and lies.

I don't know what will become of America if its people remain this lazy and ignorant to find out what's really going on in the world.

Answer 7

Even in hindsight, I see no other alternative but to confront the Islamic militants. When they were not effectively confronted, it only resulted in more terror attacks and the death of thousands of innocent people.
I can't think of a more successful way to try and stem this ideology of hatred and domination than to return their acts of terror with serious consequences.

Answer 8

Simply said and I don't know why this is so hard to figure out...our military resources should have been placed in Afghanistan not Iraq.

Answer 9

I guess the libs would have let Al-Q knock down all the builldings they wanted and just turn a blind eye to all the death and destruction.

Answer 10

Both were justified and Iraq should have been dealt with by the Presidents father.