He is a complete idiot. He has no sense of warfare whatsoever why didn't he just nuke Iraq?
2006-09-27 10:42:09 · 29 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Don't feel ept to spar with these scholars. I don't think that the American Public was thinking. I think that they felt comfortable with him and as the Professor mentions they did not want to change horseman in the middle of the battle, but we also must remember that the President of the USA only has a certain amount of power. We cannot blame him for everything. He is more of a figurehead than a power person. He has power of influence. He does not create the law........Laws are voted on in the Senate and the House of Reps. ..... He may veto them and send them back which in essence can eventually be passed by another president at a later date...... or...... He may sign them into effect so that they become law...... if the American public is concerened about the President of the USA having too much power then they must speak to their State Representatives about changes........... WAR..... IS A SMALL WORD BUT IN ACTION IS A BIG PROBLEM..................The President has the Power to declare war......This problem all goes back to the checks and balances we have in place.....if they don't work we need to change them
2006-09-28 06:23:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The last letter of your question should be revisited.
He is not capable of managing the directors and prosecutors of war efficiently and effectively. We needed a minimum force of 500-600k troops for a tour of duty lasting a minimum of five years. The borders of Iraq should have been the SECOND thing secured, the first being Baghdad. The insurgencies and vendettas in Iraq today are indicative of long-festering sectarian hatred, which Rummy/Cheney/Bush neglected to give much forethought to.
Is he a complete idiot? Well, as Clinton was adept in domestic policy, his two missiles and a prayer solution for OBL was equally idiotic. His insistence on Arafat/Barak making peace and signing an unenforceable agreement before his term ended was disastrous. His response to all the terrorism that occurred on and off the homeland was not sufficient and not worthy of praise or credit by any means.
That being said, we're not looking the other way with Iran or N. Korea, as Clinton and others did before Bush, and we're not shying away from conflict if, when and where it is required. Avoiding a response to terrorism may be more idiotic and unexplainable than responding poorly. Iran will have to be dealt with forcefully, as they show no intention to cede ground in their nuclear ambitions. It's time their regime woke up to the 21st century, now is not the time to slam on the brakes for the US.
2006-09-27 17:50:06 · answer #2 · answered by rohannesian 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Nukes?? Probably because the fall out over the middle east, and I'm not just referring to the politics. Review the devastating effects post explosion. As for the war; You have heard of "Napoleons Folly"?? Well as Napoleon expected the Russians to surrender when he marched into Moscow, so Mr. Bush expected the Iraqis to cheer. Wrong in both cases. Iraqis crawled out of the rubble/bunkers mad as hell vowing to kill Americans. Bushs Folly Iraq war has gone down hill from there, with prison scandal, killing of civilans, and rape. Big mess and So many conflicting reports I almost refuse to form/make opinions on Iraq. As for reelecting Mr Bush its his mess and the thinking of many was he is the one who should find a solution.
2006-09-27 18:00:35 · answer #3 · answered by longroad 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting solution.
Being Canadian I couldn't vote in your election, but I was not really surprised he was re-elected. People don't like change. They prefer not to rock the boat, and they keep things the same, comfortable.
The majority of people who vote actually have very little knowledge as to why or who they should actually vote one (way or another).
I sympathize with you though. We've also got a complete idiot ruining... um I mean running... or do I... our nation.
They still have not declared what the ACTUAL mission in Afghanistan. Just that we're staying there until it's completed... and in the process loss many more soldiers.
2006-09-27 17:50:00 · answer #4 · answered by Jason T 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i was thinking because i voted for kerry and gore. his 'crusade' in iraq is another plot he wants to 'democraticize' the former monacrhy. newsflash!!! saddam tortured his OWN people for his own pleasure. we had no business sticking our noses in their. i guess you cna call this war the 4th crusade. well 5th if you caount daddys invasion.
the fomer presidents banned nuclear weapons for some reason that has escaped me at the moment. but the attacks would still have happened no matter who was put in the white house.
maybe (I SAID MAYBE) if we exit iraq and the the holy land, tell israel to defend for themselves and stay mum about everything this wouldve never happened, but im just saying what i think eventhough not many people would support me and im under alot of stress from work and school.
so just ignore what i say and whatever. sometimes i dont even know what im saying.
2006-09-27 17:57:00 · answer #5 · answered by jamz 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we werent thinkin thats the thing
everbody was all excited when he won and 2004
but what do u think the people that voted for bush r doin now
sulking
THEY REGRET THE FACT THAT THEY ELECTED THAT ****** IDIOT AGAIN!!!!!!
and u know y he didnt nuke iraq
cause iraqs allies will nuke us
and our allies will nuke their allies and then there will be an all out nuclear war and we will all die
2006-09-27 17:50:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
People are complaining about death in Iraq and now you say nuke them? Wow you are a smart one.
2006-09-27 17:44:39 · answer #7 · answered by Luekas 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i had no idea. he was the point man on terrorism but in march 2005 went crazy or at least we began to find out.
It's not what a President does in front of the country and the world, it's become what a President does behind a country's back and the world that has become who you vote for.
2006-09-27 17:46:25 · answer #8 · answered by yars232c 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Remember, we didn't elect Bush (by popular vote anyway), the republicans stole this election.
2006-09-27 18:04:26 · answer #9 · answered by kennyman 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
why didnt he just nuke Iraq? because he wants oil. if he destroyed iraq he wouldnt get the oil, man.
2006-09-27 17:44:49 · answer #10 · answered by dinky 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋