Originally Posted by bwaites
I'll answer---Yes, Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Perhaps indirectly, but nevertheless, SOMETHING.
Iraq has been a harborer of terrorists since at least the time that Saddam came to power. The terrorists knew that. They knew that Saddam had never been attacked for his having harbored terrorists, that led them to believe that Afghanistan would not be attacked if it also harbored terrorists--they miscalculated. Thus emboldened, they decided upon a course of action that has led us to where we are.
NOT attacking terrorists when given the opportunity got us to 9/11. Bill Clinton had at least 2 known opportunities to take out Bin Laden and didn't do it. Thus 9/11 happened.
Anyone who believes the world is not a better place without Saddam Hussein, please stand up!!
Thanks for answering. The world would be a better place without a lot of dictators but we don't attack them. Another fact is that taking out a dictator like Sadam can open the door for far worse leaders.
Ok, even though most people in Washington admit that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, let say you are right. At least you do say "indirectly". Well then that would put a lot of others in that boat like Iran, Syria, Palestinians, etc. Should we invade all those countries? Fact is that Iran supported Bin Laden way more than Iraq.
I'm sure EVERYBODY agrees that Bin Laden is the #1 guy responsible for 9/11. So, why did bush send 10 times the number of troops into Iraq than Afghanastan?
So, for my next question....
Why did we go after Sadam instead of Bin Laden?
Slymule, would you like to answer any of the questions?