By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
PhoenixKing on 15 April 2010
Edit Thread
sguy78 said:
PhoenixKing said:
Because they didn't act when they should have or show any sympathy to their own citizens.

1.) It gives the image of compassion to the American people. Which may even raise approval ratings like President Kennedy's admittance to the failure of the Bay of Pigs and taking blame for it.

2.) Secrutary of State Rice didn't take the information of the two Al Qaeda hijackers that were discovered by Tenet on alert to the necessary cabinets that should have been notified and would have been had Rice done her job correctly.

3.) The Bush Administration on a whole was extremely negligent regarding Al Qaeda's activities prior to 9/11/2001. Several months went by with no measures taken in preventing or stopping their activities. Clarke, who was head of counterterrorism under Clinton and had been working in the White House since Reagan's time, was ignored despite doing his utmost in trying to alert the Bush Administration on the dangers of Al Qaeda.

To be frank, Al Qaeda wasn't some new organization that mysteriously made itself known on 9/11/2001. They had declared war on America in 1996, were responsible for the Twin Tower parking lot bombings, and several other events around the world.

Are you really so anti-Bush, that you are going to blame 9/11 on him 9 months into his presidency? Give me a break. Also, the UN blocked going into Iraq because of a veto vote by France, which we found out was milking money illegally to Saddam via the food for oil program, and were tying to cover it up. With all due respect, Saddam was a murdering psychopath, and I'm glad he's gone.


I'm blaming the Administration not one person and are you saying that they were right to have not done anything to at least try and secure the safety of America against Terrorism?

If you're really interested then please read the following and I'll explain, as best as I can, why going after Hussein was a bad idea apart from the obvious fact it hampered our country's focus on Al Qaeda.

There are plenty of murdering psychopaths in the world, who hold more nuclear power than Hussein ever did before his weapons projects were completely disbanded in 1991, and Iraq is about to face Civil war because of what America did.

You're also not looking at this from an international perspective. By not following U.N. guidelines and going into Iraq without proof of any weapons or links to Al Qaeda, America essentially stated they can go into what ever country they don't like and completely change it to it's liking.

America now looks belligerent and incompetent among the international community. Al Qaeda has possibly gained more support from Muslims in impoverished countries because of this action because, unfortunately, Bush's actions support Al Qaeda's claims about the free world hating all non-free world countries and trying to dominate them.

Another problem you most likely haven't considered is the fact that in war civilians are most likely to be killed. Soldiers can't tell the difference between Insurgents and normal people during combat. Thus, causalties such as innocent men, women, and children end-up dying.

Now, I've noticed most people are like: "So what? It's war, duh." but let me ask you this, how do you think those who have lost loved ones, innocent people who are the friends and family to the Iraqi's,  going to take such a statement?

Some people argue "they shouldn't have come to a battlefield!" but again, this is also ignorant of the facts of war, because while there are parameters such as the "green zone", you can't take every single innocent person from an entire country and safely tuck them away in a safe area. It's simply not possible. In war, it's easier to ignore the fact that the people you're shooting might be innocent, it's why murder in war is excused. Typically, most people don't even want to acknowledge that people from their home country could murder innocents.

In fact, Wikilinks has leaked one such video, dated during 2007, of an engagement with what turned out to be innocent civilians that the U.S. army had shot, injured, and killed.