He and his neocon handlers have been inflaming violence as the United loses its grip on the Middle East. Democratization is leading to more ethnic conflict and then to more war. Economically backward societies have no stake in rapid change. They will see the occupying forces as enemies and agents of exploitation.
Increasing violence from Iraq will only continue to spread - and the Republicans who wanted this war are the catalysts who made it far, far worse.
2006-09-29 00:30:11 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I must say it is a fantastic question.
Yes, the Bush style of war against terrorism is indeed a prescription for increasing its depth as well as spread. In the case of terrorism, the terrorist leader is not the enemy, nor the territory he uses. The war against terrorism can only be fought by striking at the root of the problem. The root of the problem is a feeling of inequality and injustice. To take shape into organized terrorism, such feeling of inequality and injustice ought to have been commonly present in a sect, community or nation of large number of people. It is the duty of the well-to-do and powerful nations to sincerely address their grievances - it is a slow process but the only one that can finish terrorism. By declaring a war against selected terrorists, USA has actually provided them undue publicity and further consolidated their resolve to hurt even more dramatically and spectacularly. Mr Bush has failed in his mission not because the US Intelligence or the US Forces are any inferior, he has failed due to adopting wrong means and ways to tackle the problem.
Before deciding whether to support Bush or not, it is equally necessary to ensure that the alternative choice also does not lead US into the same mess.
Like human beings that we are supposed to be, we have to conquer any errant people not by force of weapons, but through the force of words and logic.
2006-09-29 01:07:15 · answer #1 · answered by small 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
we don't stay in a Utopia. a lot of human beings dropped the ball. Now that the U. S. is in Iraq the question comes right down to what does it take to have a stable Iraq. A stable Iraq is a place the place the locals are in a stronger place than as quickly as we entered & they sense that it quite is nicely worth making an investment of their u . s . a .. If the locals do not see a destiny for the rustic they gained't positioned funds into it. We would have long previous into Iraq for noble motives, yet we would desire to stay in for a minimum of the OIL. If there's a civil conflict the group that would not have administration of the oil will ignite it. this could be undesirable the two for the 1st worlds' economic gadget & the ecosystem of the planet. start up observing the international because it is not as what you like it became!
2016-10-18 04:38:20 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You cant get worse the the Saddam Regime. Americans had a civil war, they are doing better then we did. Iraqis need to choose what matters killing eachother or their families and their country,Americans cant tell a Suni from a Shiete, we live with people of different colors, religion, beliefs, they look alike and worship Allah, Grow up
2006-09-29 01:38:45 · answer #3 · answered by Zane S 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I am frustrated with the Bush administration. Especially now that Bob Woodward's tell-all is detailing the real amount of losses that our soldiers are going through everyday. I am sick of his administration and I want him out of office. I am also disgusted by the amount of power the president has been given to torture terrorists. He is no better than the Al Qaeda in this regard. Supporting Bush is supporting stupidity.
2006-09-29 00:36:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Terrorism it self has taken a different version from normal claim. so far a definite terminolgy is not derived for terrorism as per international standards. becasue countires which still have rules as to control terrorism, is unable to find an end to it !!!
comparingly Bush is also a victim in it !!! all leaders who must find an end to it , Bush is also trying to play his part
2006-09-29 01:30:03 · answer #5 · answered by david j 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sad that you state that it is neocon this or neocon that.
The President of the United States is NOT a terrorist nor does he sponsor, support, or condone terrorism!
2006-09-29 06:59:37 · answer #6 · answered by fatboysdaddy 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, the terrorist believe if they die fighting the coalition forces they will be martyrs, and President Bush is helping as many as possible achieve this goal. I would say he is supporting them.
2006-09-29 02:52:26 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The Terrorist is in the White House.
A-rabs are not threatening my Constitution. BUSH is.
2006-09-29 16:45:50 · answer #8 · answered by manabovetime 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you 100% Very well put,any thing I would add would be redundent.
2006-09-29 02:53:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, it cannot. Reality check: I'm pretty sure there were some democrats that wanted this war, too.
2006-09-29 00:34:55 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋