TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Why did Bush allow Jordan to get bombed?

Why did Bush allow Jordan to get bombed?

Crazy Lefty loony thinking, I know. It's Friday, and considering my tin foil hat no longer works the way I thought, things always get a little messed up with my few brain cells left.

But the thought has occurred to me, considering Zarqawi is claiming responsibility and if we assume that claim is valid - why did Bush not kill Zarqawi when he had the chance to do so prior to the Iraq invasion?:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

Where would we be if Bush had actually killed him in '02?

Just a thought.

That's like asking where would we be when Clinton had Osama on a plate and did nothing before 9/11.

Your presidents are wierd...

Happily my tin foil hat only picks up happy, elevator-style, culturally Canadian correct Eskimo music from the 70s...

Re: Why did Bush allow Jordan to get bombed?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Where would we be if Bush had actually killed him in '02? Just a thought.

Maybe in a better place, though probably not in as good a place had Clinton taken Bin Laden when he had a chance. You know you shudna opened up that can-o-worms.

Hindsight's a bitch.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That's like asking where would we be when Clinton had Osama on a plate and did nothing before 9/11. Your presidents are wierd... Happily my tin foil hat only picks up happy, elevator-style, culturally Canadian correct Eskimo music from the 70s...

Damn you! Nearly simultaneous, but you beat me to it!

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Damn you! Nearly simultaneous, but you beat me to it!

I have masta typing skillz grasshoppa...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r That's like asking where would we be when Clinton had Osama on a plate and did nothing before 9/11. Your presidents are wierd... Happily my tin foil hat only picks up happy, elevator-style, culturally Canadian correct Eskimo music from the 70s...

You wouldn't happen to be referring to that darn debunked Sudan claim that Hannity loves to spin to this day, are you?:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/..."

Funny:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008

Now don't get me wrong, Clinton certainly had his mistakes made prior to 9/11. The 9/11 Commission reports and other sources from the CIA make that abundantly clear. Much of that, of course, was Clinton's continuation of downsizing the intelligence community from Bush Sr.'s policies from the post-Cold War era, let alone a $65 million investigation by your GOP into his rusty zipper. But there is also plenty of evidence that Clinton took things quite seriously in his second term on Al Qaeda, including a policy to hunt down and kill Osama, to which Bush Jr., Cheney, Rice, and Ashcroft took to heart for about, oh, 2 seconds. Now you may not have gone down this path with me, but I've posted here numerous times demonstrating the seriousness of Clinton on Al Qaeda versus Bush's "seriousness" (or lackthereof) prior to 9/11. If you've got the time, I'll do my best to match wits.

If Zarqawi would have been dead, someone else would have done it instead.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew If Zarqawi would have been dead, someone else would have done it instead.

Perhaps, perhaps not. Would 9/11 have occurred if it wasn't for the 19 men who did it? Would someone else have taken their place? Would someone have taken the place of Hitler and created WWII instead? Would someone have taken the place of [insert bad guy here] and caused [insert bad event here] instead?

It's difficult to substitute people and the events they have caused simply because that time and event in history has already passed. Who knows what would have occurred, but I don't think anyone can safely conclude such an event would have occurred regardless especially if we take the point man out who created that given event.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Perhaps, perhaps not. Would 9/11 have occurred if it wasn't for the 19 men who did it? Would someone else have taken their place? Would someone have taken the place of Hitler and created WWII instead? Would someone have taken the place of [insert bad guy here] and caused [insert bad event here] instead? It's difficult to substitute people and the events they have caused simply because that time and event in history has already passed. Who knows what would have occurred, but I don't think anyone can safely conclude such an event would have occurred regardless especially if we take the point man out who created that given event.

True. But seeing as other things have developed over the last couple of years, the situation would have looked almost exactly the same wheahter it would have been for Zarqawi or not. Perhaps this certain event wouldn't have happend, but a terroract somewhere outside of Iraq would sooner or later probably happen. Imo I don't think the leaders of these organisations is the main thing to be fought, but the cause.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew True. But seeing as other things have developed over the last couple of years, the situation would have looked almost exactly the same wheahter it would have been for Zarqawi or not. Perhaps this certain event wouldn't have happend, but a terroract somewhere outside of Iraq would sooner or later probably happen. Imo I don't think the leaders of these organisations is the main thing to be fought, but the cause.

Quite right. Point very well taken.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.