Why President Bush does not opt for any peacefull solution for Iraq.?

Answer 1

What peaceful solution? We tried they did not accept. And we don't communicate with terrorist.

Answer 2

I would like John B to tell me how many Al Qeada members have been killed or captured in Iraq. Any round number will do.

Now I would like John B to tell me who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

While the reason of going into Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, it had everything to do with terrorism. Saddam was leading a rogue state that was willing to pay off suicide bombers' families and stand in defiance against 17 U.N. resolutions. Although many throughout the world are against the war, the fact is that we are now engaged with members of Al Qaeda. You want to pull away now? Get real...

__________________


I would like Abby to tell me how to achieve peace in the region, but at the same time, prevent Iraq from falling into the hands of the insurgency.

You would be unwise to believe that the insurgency is only one group of people. It is not possible to negotiate to an entity that doesn't speak with one voice.

_________________

Radworks,
This might be news to you bud, but all the senators in Congress had access to the same intelligence. The international community's intelligence agreed with ours. People like yourself find a sense of relief by blaming Bush, hoping that he'll show humiliation for making the decision that he did.

Based on intelligence that wasn't fabricated, he shouldn't have to. The nuke option wasn't the ONLY reason to take out Saddam. Just about everyone else internationally and in our Senate made the same mistake, but the larger picture is what's important now.

Answer 3

Not going to Iraq would not have been peaceful - Saddam Hussein was not going to change his ways.
Leaving Iraq now would not be peaceful - People won't quit killing each other just because we left.
Staying in Iraq won't be peaceful. Yes, It's possible that it will never end there. But now that we are there, staying is the most peaceful option.

Answer 4

Kind of late for a peaceful solution isn't it. Sadly extremist only understand one thing and that is force. The only way to defeat terrorist and terrorism is to destroy it. Thankfully we have brave young men and women in uniform willing to go above and beyond everyday in defense of our nation. Millions liberated and the birth of a Democracy, that is a beautiful thing and a great many positives will result.

Answer 5

Dont be a shmuck.The insurgents are the only ones not being peacful in Iraq.We would have been gone from there and back home by now if it wer'nt for these muslim freaks of nature. Advise to you-Get three friends.Have them tug hard on shoulders .One, two, three, POP! What was that sound? Your head dislodging from your four points of contact.

Answer 6

There may have been possible peaceful solutions, but then it would've labeled the US as a sissy, girl of a country who back down to "terrorists." Peaceful "solutions" were unpractical, unworkable, and unagreeable to the present, or in fact any administration of any country at that particular time.

Answer 7

There is no peaceful solution for an area of the world who knows nothing but killing for close to 1,000 years. This is not Bush's fault...his objective there however, is (oil).

Answer 8

Because to pursue a peaceful solution leaves no avenue for Haliburton and Bush's other corporate buddies to profit, you silly goose.

Answer 9

Because that would hurt his pride and in his ego dominated would there is nothing greater. Thousands upon thousands should die less the "decider" be proven wrong. Haven't you noticed, when has that peice of crap ever admitted to being wrong? I don't mean "I had bad intel" wrong or "I was lead to beleive" wrong, I mean a good old fashion I screwed the pooch wrong.

Answer 10

Because there is no peaceful solution for Iraq!

Answer 11

Bush never cared about peace. He cared about a smoke screen to distract from Osama Bin Ladin. And guess what....it worked.