Remember March 03? The war would be over in "or" by Oct of 03. What happen?
2006-07-25 04:23:09 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
They thought the troops would be greeted with open arms by those oppressed by Saddam Husein. It was onr of many intelligence failures. The war is a fiasco and it is getting worse every day.
2006-07-25 04:28:36 · answer #1 · answered by notyou311 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You didn't identify the "warmongers". An actual war is a conflict between two or more national uniformed armies. The uniformed army of Iraq was defeated in a couple of days.
What is going on in Iraq right now are conflicts between various groups, each jockying around to get control of the government.
There is no declaired war between America and any other nation.
What happened ? The Iraqi army was defeated, but various Mullahs are trying to take over Saddan's dictatorship and are using brainless followers to do their dirty work.
2006-07-25 04:35:48 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same reason Clinton turned down not once but 3 times "Osama's head on a platter" by Sudan. In this "free time" we have liberated 2 countries, crushed the Taliban, crippled Al Queda with several new leaders, put nuclear inspectors in Libya, Iran & North Korea (no shots needed), & captured a terrorist named Saddam who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people.
The world does not stop for any of us to set a time table - somtimes things take longer than expected, when the "bad" guys work together to distract us.
2006-07-25 04:33:24 · answer #3 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same reason that the Union thought that the Civil War would be over in a month or two. Underestimating the enemy. But they ain't war mongers.
2006-07-25 04:28:28 · answer #4 · answered by DirtyHarry 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Isn't it funny that they had a projection of when the war would be over, but then reject the idea of setting a time table because you can't put a time goal on war?
2006-07-25 04:28:48 · answer #5 · answered by onanist13 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they definitely underestimated the Iraqi's; I don't think they expected as many rebels to react the way they do ( as far as bombing goes). They probably thought that when Saddam fell, then everyone in that country would be happy; well there are still hundreds, maybe thousands, who were brainwashed to follow his will, whether he was in charge or not.
2006-07-25 04:35:51 · answer #6 · answered by Beautiful Insanity 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because Bushie saw his daddy do it and thought "hey I can make those dumb Americans forget my brother and I just stole this here election if we go beat up on them there Iraqi's".
News Flash Georgie ol boy the hijackers were SAUDI's, your friends...When are we attacking Saudi Arabia Nimrod?
2006-07-26 01:28:26 · answer #7 · answered by macdyver60 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
poor planning,,,,the lies to go to Iraq were so obvious to many of us in the Democratic Party,,, Powell at the UN was a sad day in American history, for him and the country,,, Bush and his MISSION ACCOMPLISHED banner was another indication that this team of fiscal conservatives had no clue what they were doing
2006-07-25 04:29:01 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
People are always optimistic. in the civil war they thought it would be one battle. It lasted for five years.
2006-07-25 04:28:12 · answer #9 · answered by zginder 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Funny how they are never right about estimations of how long a war will last.
In the case of Iraq, inexplicably they thought the people would welcome them. History taught them nothing, or so it would seem.
2006-07-25 04:30:29 · answer #10 · answered by peewit 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋