When you dont let the UN do its search and you want to go to War based on 10 year old inteligence... That could be the problem. Bush rushed to war knowing that if he didnt do it quickly there might be a lot more opposition to his claims. If he could start the war he knew they wouldnt be able to just walk away when the **** hit the fan. This is Bush's personal agenda.
By the way when did Republicans become Nation builders?? Before Bush was elected they gave the Democrats hell over trying to change leadership and build new government in foriegn countries. Even Bush as Texas Governer said nations should be left alone and not told how to run their country.
2006-06-12 07:43:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by Scott C 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
The world is right, the US was wrong on Iraq. It is a mess. 30 to perhaps 100 thousand innocent people dead. For nothing. There are more terrorists today then ever before. The standard of living in the US is slipping. People are better off in Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and many other countrys. The US has taken many bad turns and is now lost. Our country is at a cross roads. What happens in the next two federal elections will effect the rest of our lives. Stop pretending.
2006-06-12 14:37:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Arthur 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Saddam Hussein had WMD's in the past and had attempted to aquire them recently before we entered Iraq. We assumed he either had them or would aquire them in the near future. Since his behavior in the past is consistant with him using them. We disarmed him and his regime before that became a reality. Preventing a problem is far more effective than dealing with it once it has developed. Saddam in the past had use chemical weapons and had developed biological weapons and attempted to make nuclear weapons before the Israelis destroyed his weapon facility. He had also led the invasion of Kuwait, a war with Iran, and he has attacked every neighboring country of Iraq with the exception of Syria. The world is better off without Saddam. Most of the world knows this they're just blinded by the bribes they receive. Note the U.N. oil for food scandal where french and german officials received bribes from Saddam and likely many other nations got these bribes.
2006-06-12 15:36:56
·
answer #3
·
answered by supermontage1975 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The world has taken a socialistic turn in almost all of the countries you discussed. In the case of France and Germany it was obvious Saddam was buying them off (along with the UN, Russia and possibly China). The US is the beacon of capitalism and they aren't the winners in capitilism we are....so they don't care if we get hurt by a terrorist group like al queda, they'd like to see us brought down from our hiearchy on the planet to their level.
2006-06-12 13:59:32
·
answer #4
·
answered by netjr 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
There weren't any. Most people knew it too.
I think most people here thought so also. Every one said nothing for fear of not backing the president at a time of war. And the Bush administration played on that.
2006-06-12 14:31:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by sassyk 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because the weapons inspectors never found them but we were going in anyways. If they were moved, then we need to keep looking. Invasion isn't always an answer. It's sort of like asking your 2 year old son if he took a cookie and he says no. Then, even if you have no proof that he took it, you ground him. Only you don't invade his room and bomb it.
2006-06-12 13:59:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by bluejacket8j 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Maybe not everyone agrees that ,military might is right, and they did not notice .that we have more military bases globally, than all their countries put together, and we are still expanding and we are a force that can longer be reckoned with, all the combined military forces of the world,are greatly outnumbered by American forces,weapons of mass destruction and bases.
2006-06-12 19:36:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You mean the WMD's that he knew weren't there anyway!
2006-06-12 14:12:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by cantcu 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because ignorance seems to be in an abundance.
2006-06-12 13:58:29
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 1
·
0⤊
0⤋