2006-06-19 08:25:47 · 28 answers · asked by openpsychy 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Not in his term, but I believe we are on the right track. Can you even imagine if we had of not done anything at all after 911, where we would be by now....Hopefully when Mr. Bush leaves office, the person taking over will continue his efforts for a peaceful Iraq.
2006-06-19 08:35:29 · answer #1 · answered by CindyLou 1 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Probably not. George Bush is not a social worker or a psychiatrist. He is merely the President of the United States.
Britain didn't succeed against terrorism in Northern Ireland, Syria didn't succeed against terrorism in Palestine.
Terrorism is a mental illness. It is not a political issue in the sense that you can solve the problem politically.
2006-06-19 08:28:49 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
Fist, I would have to say that the war wasn't originally against terrorism. I would say that it was more of his attempt to back up Daddy. And, didn't we originally go in for weapons of mass destruction? That we didn't find? Sure, I believe there were some there and that they were exported, but the point still stands. He didn't find what he went to to find. So he needed a backup plan. Hm. Suicide bombers. Terrorists. Good enough back up. So, come in, destroy the government, and take over the country with, i believe, the second most oil in the world. Coincidence?
Second, it is simply in human nature to cause pain and terror in others. Not all do, but it is still in our nature. And it does not need to be a mass murder to count as causing terror. Child abuse is a form of terror. But, in the sense of mass murder, the answer is still no. This is one country that is causing terrorism. It's all over. France and Ireland are two more that are experiencing terrorism. Are we there, fighting to stop it? No, because it's not something we can stop. We may - and that's a big 'may' - be able to get rid of the majority of it in Iraq. However, this war will make no difference in the world as a whole.
2006-06-19 08:37:26 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO. The war on terror will have to start in each country that has a population that is uneducated, no skills, no hope. The ruling class is keeping them fed with hate, for us, for anyone who doesn't believe in their religion, for anyone different. The United Nations would be the best place to start a process, but they are so wrapped up in politics they can't get anything done. Bush is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
2006-06-19 08:55:40 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes He will succeed in the war against terror.
2006-06-19 08:29:46 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, this is not just Bush's war, Dem's and Rep's both voted to ok it and it is for the good of the world. Second, will it succeed? Only if the Iraqi's are committed to it, it will take years of reconditioning the Iraqi people to not be afraid and to take over the responsibility of their own country...I hope it does because once democracy takes over in the Arab countries and people actually have a voice in the condition of their own lives will there ever be true peace.
2006-06-19 08:31:43 · answer #6 · answered by hell_in_a_handbasket 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, President Bush will not succeed. But he will have given the U.S. and the rest of the free world a damned fine start. President Bush will be out of office before the war on terror is completed, and it will be the reponsibility of his successors to finish the job.
The U.S.A. *WILL* succeed, as long as we don't wimp out.
2006-06-19 08:29:11 · answer #7 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's impossible to win a war against an ideology.
Bu this war isn't about terror, that's just the big lie they told to get people scared enough to agree to attack. It's really about oil, and about the rich getting even more rich while the poorer classes die in battle.
2006-06-19 10:28:39 · answer #8 · answered by ratboy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If i'm trustworthy with myself, i'm uncertain. I easily disagree with a wholesale withdrawal of troops. Nor do I agree that one greater 21,000 troops will make plenty if any of a distinction. The conflict became so badly botched from the beginning up, i don't be attentive to if the US has the choose to play seize-up. To that quantity, my opinion of President Bush is amazingly low. So, going into Iraq became a mistake, yet whilst the US became to leave now or in the close to destiny, it would desire to leave an horrendous political vacuum in all likelihood maximum proper to all out conflict in Iraq and perhaps via the Mid-East and appropriate Asian republics. What Bush does for the time of his final term in place of work will define his political legacy. that's what's going to shape human beings's opinion of him.
2016-12-08 22:47:07 · answer #9 · answered by hirschfeld 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. George Bush couldn't succeed at picking his nose.
2006-06-19 08:28:42 · answer #10 · answered by kentata 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush doesn't succeed in anything
except for cheating his way into the presidency
and showing what an idiot he is every time he opens his mouth
2006-06-19 08:41:58 · answer #11 · answered by samsonjedi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋