What should we have done?

[Supernick]

Everything changed after two planes were piloted into the twin towers. We've had troops sent into Afghanistan, which is still a mess of escalating violence. We've entered into an illegal war with Iraq, the terrible results of which can be viewed on the news every day. This arguably lit the fuse with the tube bombers and produced the devestating results of 7/7. We've now got a bloody assualt from Israel on Lebanon, given creedence by the US and the UK's attitude to fighting terror.
What should the governments of the US and UK done after the Sept 11 attacks?

[Whickerman]

They should have gone after Al Qeada in Afghanistan and Saudi, and wiped them out - making sure they actually got the perpetrators. Remember Osama? He's still at large and active.
Iraq had nothing to do with that attack, so should have been left as was. As you say, the war is illegal, so any retribution because of it is seen as justified.
As for Israel, the attacks there are horrific, as was the counter attack. They are steeled by their American counterparts, and feel themselves above the law - the attacks on civilian targets show this, but it's further underlined by the apparent deliberate shelling of the UN.

[Dizzieblonde]

Maybe been honest about everything from the start, rather than that whole WMD affair. That, and the fuss that arose from it - including no weapons being found to this day, and the questions around the suicide of David Kelly - made people lose faith in the government I think. That said, they were still re-elected, so....

Fair enough that they had to be seen to be tackling the cause of the 9/11 attacks, but to invade iraq on the grounds of a 'war on terror' and then give the impression that they are 'allowing' the current situation in the Lebanon just makes them appear hypocritical to me. Just my opinion though, before I'm yelled at!

[sp1814]

I might be wrong, but I thought the excuse/reason for invading Iraq at the time is that the country was listed as giving aid/support to Al Qaeda??

But year, it's true - the focus seemed to change from Afghanistan to Iraq pretty quickly without much explanation.

[Whickerman]

Sp1814 - yes, that excuse was listed, but was discounted by anyone who had any understanding of the politics of the region. Saddam would have had no dealings with Bin Laden - their beliefs were diametrically opposed, and it was reported widely that due to the politics and religious belief differences between them that Bin Laden would have been as welcome as George Bush in Baghdad...

Iraq = oil war. Nothing to do with Sep 11

[Catso]

I second whickerman: ol' Saddam hated all religious extremists, and persecuted them. By and large, they kept well away from Iraq in his day. He made sure there was only ever going to be one religion in Iraq, Baathism.

But that aside, I think it rather naive to say that had Iraq or Afghanistan not been invaded we wouldn't have all these problems today.

[Dizzieblonde]

I'm inclined to agree with Catso on that point - especially the current problems. Israel and the surrounding countries have always been at odds, so it was probably just a matter of time before it broke out.

[Supernick]

But would Israel be so confident to invade and bomb, if we hadn't displayed similar attitudes to routing out terrorism in Iraq?

[Catso]

Supernick, I refer you to 1956, 1967, 1973 & 1982. Israel has never been backward about going forward.

[Dizzieblonde]

It perhaps gives them a justification, but they would have done it anyway. It's as though governments excuse anything now with the argument that it's a 'war on terror'. Diasgree, and you're - at worst, a terrorist or supporter - and at best, unpatriotic.