Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Why was Iraq considered the more immediate threat when Al Qaeda/Afganistan is still CURRENTLY commiting terrorist attacks against other nations? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Some Guy Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Uhmmmmmmmmm....... Do you remember the first day of the Iraqi war? We had misisons going on in Afghanistan at the same time and we still do. You guys are so gung ho against the administration and the war on terror that you will only pick out issolated incidents and concentrate on those rather than being patient and looking at the big picture. If there was a domestic disturbance in a house and the police showed up to quell it and around the block a known violent criminal killed his girlfriend would you say " Why was the domestic disturbance considered the more immediate threat when the violent criminal around the corner is still CURRENTLY commiting crimes against other people?" We can't stop everything, we aren't perfect and we aren't God. But we are doing a pretty God damned good job of trying and we're succeeding at almost every turn. Take a step back form your hatred of Bush and try to be a little objective. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DrTom Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Al Qaeda/Afganistan Al'Qaeda and Afghanistan are not synonymous. Al'Qaeda operates in many countries, and they still have some scattered numbers in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, however, is a country freed from the oppressive and illegitimate rule of the Taliban. We don't need to attack THEM, since they were in the Coalition of the Willing. We do need to summarily execute every Al'Qaeda member in their borders, but that's true of Al'Qaeda members the world over. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Midnight Express83 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 As much of me being against Bush most of the time, he is currently doing the best he can do right now with Al'Qaeda. There is only so much this army can do about it. Bush is trying his hardest to hunt these people, but there been Al'Qaeda attacks on 3 Contents in the last 4 years. That is a hell of a lot of ground for one nation to cover. I am going to give my full opinion on Bush and his doing when he leaves office. Then we can have an over all idea of what he did, though anything majorly stupid will be pointed out. But that goes for everyone here on everything. I am not a fan of his, but he is doing the best he can do right now with the cards he has been delt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NoCalMike Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Al Qaeda/Afganistan Al'Qaeda and Afghanistan are not synonymous. Al'Qaeda operates in many countries, and they still have some scattered numbers in Afghanistan. Afghanistan, however, is a country freed from the oppressive and illegitimate rule of the Taliban. We don't need to attack THEM, since they were in the Coalition of the Willing. We do need to summarily execute every Al'Qaeda member in their borders, but that's true of Al'Qaeda members the world over. I know they are not the same thing. I just meant Afganistan as the primary location. I am referring to dividing our attention. Al Qaeda obviously shows they are still an imminent threat if they are still commiting bombings and terrorist attacks against countries. Iraq hasn't done squat in approx 11 years, yet for some reason Saddam had to be taken out ASAP. I just find the priorities out of place, which brings suspicion as to why we went after Iraq. It seems apparent we didn't finish the job with Al Qaeda, maybe we could have held off on the war in Iraq until we finished taking out Al Qaeda. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Kingpk Report post Posted May 14, 2003 We've killed half of their major leaders, took out their major base of operations, the number of terrorist attacks around the world dropped by almost ONE HALF last year and whatever ones did occur were mostly car bombs, which is fairly easy to pull off. I mean, people talk about "cutting off the head" of Al-Queda (i.e. getting bin Laden) to stop it, but doesn't cutting off the arms, legs, torso and then stabbing it in the heart make the head useless? What I mean is by killing/capturing operatives and leaders, choking off the money supply and all that is more effective than spending all the effort to capture just one guy (who we STILL aren't really sure is alive. A videotape holding up today's paper would be a HUGE "fuck you" to the US.) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
