Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Why the war ?
Right up front let me say that I agree that Saddam needed to be deposed. But why did we stop the hunt for Osama, the man responsable for the tragedy of 9/11, and invade Iraq? It has been proven that there was not an Iraqi involved with 9/11. Most of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. Iraq had no ties with Al Quida at the time, of course Al Quida is now in Iraq to fight America but at the time of the attack on the twin towers there was no connection between the two. Now the only thing that we see is unrest in Iraq brought on by our presence there. Now I am not one to say that we cut and run, I think that we need to stay until the job is done, but should we have gone into Iraq in the first place?
As I said I do not disagree with taking out Saddam, It's just that he nor his government had anything to do with 9/11.
6 Answers
- Magma HLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
You hit the nail on the head!
The murder Osama is still free and on the run.
What happened to the promise to capture him dead or alive?
Meanwhile, more than 3000 Americans have killed in a senseless war organised by a war monger.
What in the world???
Osama's not dead while more Americans died?
Bush should be impeached, together with Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice.
- Curtis BLv 61 decade ago
We didn't stop the hunt for Bin Laddin. He's most likely in Pakistan, where we can't get to him for political reasons, if indeed he is still alive. Al Qaeda did have a base in northern Iraq, near the border with Iran, and Iraq did have chemical weapons before the war. Where they went is hard to tell, but most likely they are in Syria. And then there is the fact that Saddam has been a drain on our resources since the first Gulf War.
- Voice of LibertyLv 51 decade ago
We still have troops in Afghanistan. Yes, going to Iraq was an appropriate thing because what they had was a dictator with weapons of mass destruction (yes we have found them contrary to what the news likes to say) and the willingness to use them (ask the 300,000 dead Kurds we have found in mass graves)
Not only that, but you have several other countries, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia; with the same situation.
We have a president who understood the situation and essentially put a hole in the center of it. Now we have presence there with the hopes that if a hostile Islamic nation wants to attack the U.S. (it is in their doctrine to destroy western culture), they will do so over there, NOT on U.S. soil, giving us ample time to prepare and defend ourselves.
- 1 decade ago
Saddam Hussein funded terrorists and harbored them. and he had the civilians in Iraq under a reign of terror. and i think that those people in Iraq deserve the freedoms that we have. to do that we had to get rid of the dictator. the hunt for bin laden is still on but it's kind of hard to find a guy who lives in the desert with a Bunch of people spying on every move the Americans make to go and get him so he can always run. that's the only reason he's still alive he's running like a Frenchman.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
NO! we should have kept up the hunt for Osama and secretly assassinated Saddam. There is no way that we don't have assassins of some kind.
- 1 decade ago
Iraq is like the training wheels on your first bike.They have the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world.How much crap could the sand people cause with all that $$$$.Forget all that crap you are trying to outline.We are there-we need to kick serious balls.
