Rick
Lv 7
Rick asked in Politics & GovernmentGovernment · 1 decade ago

Why was or is the war in Iraq and Sadaam more important than the Afgan war where Osama was or is?

Update:

Just seems to me that the oppression from the Taliban was about as bad. And things are heating up there again.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Best Answer

    Iraq is more important in the American mind because we still have a lot of troops there being injured. The Afghan situation wasn't important once Osama slipped out through Pakistan and we lost him. We defeated the Iraq army and deposed their tyrant (war over). Now they are creating their own government, but we have to try to maintain some sort of stability until they can do it themselves (police action). Osama's groups (and others) are attacking us in Iraq, which is better than having them attack us in the U.S. It is going to take a long time for Iraq to stabilize, so the media will play up the injuries to our troops (ratings). Afghanistan never mattered to us once they repelled the Soviets and once Osama escaped. The Taliban are not a threat to the U.S. or any other country. Osama is weak and in hiding and does not have many friends (Countries who support him). So, Iraq is the story, that is where the news is. Has Osama done anything in the last two years? Aside from commending his dead followers and their soon-to-be-dead replacements, no. As much as people refuse to see it, Iraq is the story because it is becoming a country led by someone other than a King or Emperor, but by the people. It's a bloody change, it makes news and ratings, you have to love it and have to hate it too, when it's some of our people dying for it. Happy 4th of July!

  • 1 decade ago

    Sadaam was a major threat and it all ties into terrorism. He allowed the North Koreans to place there missiles in his country. If they had developed long range missiles than they could theoretically take out the West coast from Korea and take out the East coast from Iraq. We only found out when a country discovered what this madman was doing in 1991. After we are done with Iraq, we have to deal with North Korea's role in this. Osama is on the list but probably the 3rd agenda at this time. Don't worry, we will get him, but the terrorism won't stop because it's like racism. It is fed to the children when they are young like a cancer it spreads.

  • 1 decade ago

    The generals on the ground make the decisions as to the troops they need. Clearly, Iraq had a more established military, and continues to have some resistance.

    If we had fought a real war (massive bombing to soften defenses), the results might be different now. But the leftists in the media and Congress want a "soft and cuddly" war.

    Afghanistan is also a different place. I don't know if we could use more troops, especially since the enemy seems to hide in secluded areas on the border with Pakistan.

    But sitting home in my chair, I don't assume I know more than the generals on the scene. Do you?

  • 1 decade ago

    Well basically its because Sadaam had oil and Afghanistan did not. Osama is probably living at the White house cause if they find him then all this crap is over and we all know that the skull and bones boys have to make a profit manufacturing Weapons and aircraft and Helicopters and they can't have a lull in profits.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    The Answer is O I L . Troops are the security guards for the Haliburton Oil fields. The war is for the investments Stockholders have in Especially GWB's Stock in Military Defense Companys

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    according to the DOD (department of defense)... the last time I looked we had around 100,000 troops in Iraq and around 20,000 in Afghanistan... you tell me which one that the government thinks is more important...

    with 5 times the troops we found saddam and zarqawi in a much larger area... if we had 100,000 troops looking for Osama the whole time...odds are, we would have him...

    don't you just love how they don't care where the man that killed 3,000 people is... they just go on and on about him not being a threat... while they have no idea what he is doing... sounds a lot like America in the mid-90s... "I'm sure he's not a threat anymore"

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    They are both equally important missions. Don't be confused by what the media decides to focus on at the moment. They have their own agenda and the feeling of power they think they derive from manipulating the public into doing its bidding. The classic example was the major embarrassments of the last election. Just cuz they say it, it doesn't make it so.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    the reality is that they are not separate wars. the idea is to capture and pacify all the strategic land in the middle east, and oil is a strategic resource every bit as much as control of mountain passes that give access to the oil reserves of the former soviets republics of Turkmenistan and Chechnya.

    This is not being fought so that we can unveil the Arab women, or get them the vote.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    the war on terror was a bad idea, a wrong choice for GWB,, it will be his downfall,,,,, we should have had all our military in Afghanistan,, but we are where we are,,, so,,,, now what will the decider do,,,

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.