I'm Back! Question: when will bush admit he was wrong in starting an illegal invasion in iraq?

Answer 1

Who are you and why should we care?

Bush had very good reasons to go into Iraq. But he lied about the WMDs and needs to admit it. Plus, Iraq could have waited. We needed to finish the job we started in Afghanistan and actually find the terrorists that attacked us. Instead he has disbanded the units that were in place to find OBL. The only ones outraged by this? Liberals. Cons think it's norm the course.

Answer 2

This post is not for the weak-minded. It requires a certain level of intelligence and sophistication to understand what I am trying to say between the lines.

The Coalition Action led by the USA into Iraq wasn't wrong and it wasn't illegal.

I disagreed with the rationalization of the action spouted by pundits, and do not fantasize they have some knowledge of the mind of the POTUS. There were other, substantive legitimate reasons to secure Iraq for the Iraqi people. The information isn't classified, but it is sensitive.

The Coalition Action wasn't illegal, it had been legally approved by the UN. Some members of the UN modified their views after the resolution had passed. Although they did protest, military action was technically allowed in the initial resolution that had not been officially vacated.

I can give you some information:

In June 2001, something happened in the no-fly zones of Iraq. In a few days, their radar and targeting telemetry improved by about 50 years of technology. The aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones under UN directive were "painted".

Painting is a specific military term. It means that Iraqi had effectively targeted the aircraft requested by the UN to patrol those areas. Iraq had locked onto patrol flights, and the screen the operator was watching changed color, just like in a video game, indicating the target would be hit if fired upon at that moment.

****************************************
Clarification and Amendment: Iraq did have targeting technology prior to this date, and were using it in the first Gulf War. The Coalition Forces were able to effectively and capably respond to the old technology. Additionally the forces did have defense capabilities to counter the older technology, and as it turned out, the new technology.

It was just that in the Spring of 2001, there was such a dramatic increase in Iraqi capabilities and accuracy. It may not have been a 50 year leap in technology, but it was a very dramatic advance and improvement of the technology Iraq was using. Someone was selling them quality materiel. Not the best, but good enough to create additional problems for the coalition.

Our group had noticed the gold movements between two countries, and the personnel deployments, and the gold seemed quite excessive for the personnel. In June everything made sense again.

Thanks for the feedback.

******************************************

This was a quantum leap of technology on behalf of the Iraqis. US Gov't knows who supplied the technology, and knows which country the "technical advisers" on the ground originated from. There were thousands of Chinese on the ground.

The UN force effectively eliminated a couple of the installations and damaged others. Installing that technology was an act of war. USA had to wait a while for the Chinese "technical advisers" to leave before beginning the normalization processes for Iraq. While the USA can defeat the Chinese, open warfare between those two countries would be devastating to both sides, and the rest of the world. China is using elements of Islam to indirectly engage the USA. China will hold no loyalty to Islam or any other religion other than submission to China after China has finished using them as a pawn.

China came into line, sort of, and moved more of their weapons sales and technology transfer through third party countries, like DPRK.

The plan to normalize Iraq was forestalled by binLaden, who had already been lined up in the sites since the taliban destroyed two very large, very historic statues of Buddha.

Bush didn't collaborate with binLaden on 9/11. binLaden was aware that Iraq and Iran would be getting more attention, and his juvenile mindset mandated that he do something to "be important" Do not misunderstand my meaning here: binLaden is very intelligent, he simply is rather immature.

It thus became necessary to attempt to secure afghanistan, although noone has ever done so in the history of the world. This response was a result of the will of the American people and the global community to retaliate against the perpetrators of 9/11 and the destruction of the Buddha statues.

Iraq was justifiably in the sites of the USA and most of the UN. A few countries protested because they were profiteering on sales of arms to Iraq and allies and were skimming from the oil-for-food program. Even the son of the Secretary-General of the UN was stealing from the Iraqi people and subverting the laws governing oil for food program.

Additionally, Saddam was deteriorating into a deeper level of insanity, albeit justified because he doesn't understand the Game, and could not accept his comparative expendability.

However, Qusay could have been dealt with in succession had it not been for competition with Uday, who was not an acceptable successor. The entire world needed a regime change for Iraq, and everyone had differing ideas for what should be done to effectuate this change in a manner that would best serve their own interests..

Some Islamic countries tacitly or directly supported our actions against Afghanistan and Iraq, partly because it served their purposes, and partly because they legitimately feared the entire world was about to reshape Islamic countries like they did to the Ottoman Empire. Turkey held back, to secure certain benefits, and assurances that they would be safe from the reformation of Kurdistan.

Answer 3

Do you expect him to confess his failure in Iraq ? I don't think so
His democracy is out of question His sick dreams are not for discussion . I never liked Saddam & his retentive way of ruling
Iraq but in comparison to what had Mr. Bush brought to the great
Iraq from war , unsecurity , racisim , unemployment .......etc
I missed Saddam & the great life we had . Let me ask you all a question If Iraq had no petrol would Mr. Bush be so democratic
& peace lover.? We have a proverb( when the monkey can not dance it says the land is curved ) guess who is the monkey?

Answer 4

The truth regarding the invasion of iraq will one day come forth. it is stunning to see that people still believe in anythibg the man has said in regards to iraq. face up to it folks, there is something other than wmd's and freedom of the people in this one.

Answer 5

He is not doing anything about the illegal invasion in his own country.

Answer 6

Well the earth will be swallowed by a red giant sun in a few billion years.... in the order of trillions of years the protons in the universe will decay....

Answer 7

The twit is too stupid to admin he is wrong, in his little pea brain it's ok to do what he has done. I'd love to see him put his daughters in the military and fight like everyone else over there.

Answer 8

Welcome Back!

I would say never, mainly because:

a) He did not start the invasion

b) The invasion was not illegal, nor immoral nor any other colorful descriptive word you "highly intelligent" liberals can come up with.

Does that answer your, oh so ever, thought provoking question?

Again, Welcome Back!

Answer 9

Never, he hasn't got the capacity to comrehend what he did/has been doing is wrong.

Answer 10

Good Question

He Will Never .. I Dont Know Why ..