Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9/11?

This is such a queer theory to me. Because these are generally the same people that say go into Pakistan and I can only help but think isn’t that the same principle as Iraq? I can only assume and make an *** out of myself and say I guess it is only a good idea if is has nothing to do with anything Bush has said even if it is tactically strategically and militarily the right thing to do for the security of our nation or the capturing of said person(s) we are in pursuit of.

Go ever where but where we are and insure destabilization of that which is moving closer to fortification and stabilization for the sake of success in order to say see I told you so or what?

I am forever at a loss by the logic or the lack there of in such emotional responses to strategy.

I mean do people (common lay people) understand the idea of strategy and building line upon line precept upon precept and the adaptations necessary to make success out of failures or victory out of success?

12 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I'm really not certain what you're asking.

    Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11? Some say yes, some say no. I'm inclined to agree with the former. Here are only a few links:

    Richard Clarke, a national security advisor to President Clinton, told the Washington Post in a January 23, 1999 article that the U.S. government was "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts had produced a powdered substance at that plant for use in making VX nerve gas.

    On February 28, 1999, an article was written in The Kansas City Star which said, "He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States....."

    On December 28, 1999, an article appeared in The Herald (Glasgow, Scotland) titled, "Iraq tempts bin Laden to attack West." The article starts, "The world's most wanted man, Osama bin Laden, has been offered sanctuary in Iraq....." The article quotes a U.S. counter-terrorism source who said, "Now we are also facing the prospect of an unholy alliance between bin Laden and Saddam. The implications are terrifying."

    On April 8, 2001, an informant for Czech counter-intelligence observed an Iraqi intelligence official named al-Ani meeting with an Arab man in his 20s at a restaurant outside Prague. Following the 9/11 attacks, the Czech informant who observed the meeting saw Mohammed Atta’s picture in the papers and identified Mohammed Atta as the man who met with the Iraqi intelligence official.

    Able Danger, a highly-classified U.S. Army intelligence program under the command of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, supports information from the Czech Republic’s intelligence service that Mohammed Atta meet with the Iraqi ambassador at the Prague airport on April 9, 2001.

    On July 21, 2001 [less than two months prior to 911] the Iraqi state-controlled newspaper "Al-Nasiriya" predicted that bin Laden would attack the U.S. "with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House." The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden "will strike America on the arm that is already hurting," and that the U.S. "will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs" - an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, "New York, New York."

    Of 25 years in the Navy, I spent several involved strategy, and the lay public doesn't know anything about it -- and even less about the military. They somehow believe that any good information about the military is a blatant lie promulgated by the military, but that blatant misrepresentations by the media that are negative regarding the military is gospel. I have no idea why.

    But then I remember that these are the same people who get wrapped up in "soaps" and think the characters are real, and that "reality shows" are also real.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    There never was a good reason to go to war in Iraq. Not only did that nation have nothing to do with 9/11, the rumor that President Bush did it because of a threat to assassinate his father, the first President Bush, was not in the least true.

    The other major fallacy is the idea, held by far too many Americans, that all Muslims are America- hating radicals. That's not true even in the Middle East.

    9/11 was a criminal act, not an act of war. It should never have devolved into this impossible idea of a "war on terror". That's as ridiculous as Lyndon Johnson's "war on poverty" and Nixon's "war on drugs". I'm surprised some jerk hasn't declared the current economic crisis a "war on prosperity" conducted by a super-secret enclave of religiously-motivated fanatics. Come to think of it, some dumbbell actually has made that declaration... *sigh*

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    It's a pretty simple concept. Saddam Hussein might have been a total d*ck, but Iraq was stable under him and there weren't heavy concentrations of terrorist organizations under his rule. We destroyed that. The reason to go into Pakistan is also very simple. We're not going to destroy the government like in Iraq. Terrorists in Afghanistan have been fleeing into an area of northern Pakistan that is almost completely ungoverned by the actual central government of Pakistan. Instead of going in and destroying a government and making things utter chaos we would be destroying groups that are causing chaos and have been getting away by crossing the Pakistani border.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    The people that have fought our own country on this for years would have found reasons to do the same even if Osama Bin Laden was waiting in a big palace in Iraq. They basically hate this country because they cannot mold and shape it into the way that they think it should be, instead of trying to make it the way that the founding fathers intended. Especially these 911 conspiracy nutjobs...they just need to leave.

    Libs.

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

    9/11 make up your own mind.

    The British reaction at 9/11 was to come to the immediate aid of the USA - to do anything and every thing possible.

    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=...

    As an old soldier, I do not give a damn who was responsible for 9/11 - that is an entirely poltical problem. My total support is for the armed forces of the allies now in a dangerous war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Yada yada yada. Instead of complaining about how things are going, or not, why don't you put your energy to supporting the troops and their mission so we can get the hell out of southwest asia. Volunteer some of your free time, which you seem to have an abundance of, at the USO or Red Cross. Help a young mother, whose husband is deployed, give their kids a good Christmas.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I disagree for one reason, bladeslinger. The terrorists were not in Iraq until we were. They crossed borders and used this upheaval as a way to advance their agendas.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    EVERYONE ELSE HAS THE WRONG ANSWER!

    I think that Bush went over there and and challenged hem to do something and that is why the whole thing started.

    Source(s): me
  • 1 decade ago

    It's all about making everyone value what americans value. And if you threaten that then you must conform or die. ... So funny since the US is full of crime and injustice already. just the tyrants have debts instead of ropes to hang us by.

  • Lu W
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    I don't know what you are mumbling about. Oh, and I LOLED at the "queer theory".

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.