2006-10-04 07:34:23 · 23 answers · asked by deborah_012003 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
What is Irac???
2006-10-04 07:35:26 · answer #1 · answered by JerseyRick 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, I think Saddam could have been a bit more 'low profile.' Going after Kuwait was just about the stupidest thing that he could have thought up. Iraq would still be in a world of hurt even if Bush hadn't commandeered it, but at least the U.S. wouldn't be trillion dollars in debt. Way to destabilize the planet Bush! Oh well, it was probably God's Will anyway, that's what Bush says and he should know, God talks to him. And you know, why wouldn't God talk to the president? Think about it, if you were God wouldn't you be telling the President of the United States who to attack?
Oh, yea, it would have helped if the U.S. hadn't set up Saddam in the first place.
2006-10-04 14:45:00 · answer #2 · answered by eantaelor 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, I think Saddam Hussein is the cause of the problems in Iraq and further. If he would've never invaded Kuwait, we would've never put military bases in Saudi Arabia to help Kuwait and Bin Laden never would've declared war on the US for putting bases in "Muslim Holy Land". If he wouldn't have been evasive with UN weapons inspectors, we would've had no reason to go back in there. Saddam is responsible, directly and indirectly, for a lot of the mess in the world right now.
2006-10-04 14:43:23 · answer #3 · answered by Chris J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hmm you must be a bleeding heart liberal. No He is not the cause for it all. He is for some of it. But there are two diffrent groups that want control of that nation. And eventually one will win! With or without our help. We did them a favor and freed them. Then they turna round like a bunch of spoiled baby's and start fighting and arguing over who get's what. If either group wanted the best for the country they would work harder to make peace!
2006-10-04 14:44:49 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. They were handling dealing out problems to each other just fine without us. I do not think democracy and christianity are safe to substitute for each other. I feel sorry for the soldiers who are there now. They are following orders in the line of duty and for that I respect their positions but I am not sure I can safely say the same for the parties (and I do not believe it is all Bush's fault alone) who sent them there to kill and die.
2006-10-04 14:38:56 · answer #5 · answered by mortgagegirl101 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Irac or Iraq. Either way the answer is yes
2006-10-04 14:37:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No actually George Bush is only the tip of the iceberg.
2006-10-04 14:36:38 · answer #7 · answered by Nora Explora 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No. I think OIL and Abraham not listening to God and instead listening to his wife and her hand made giving birth to a illegitimate child is the problems with the middle east.
2006-10-04 14:39:33 · answer #8 · answered by James C 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. They had their own problems to begin with. Not that I think Bush is helping anything, but you can't blame it all on him.
2006-10-04 14:36:33 · answer #9 · answered by Allison L 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can't blame all of the problems in ***IRAQ*** on one dude.
I'm not sure if he's helping the situation exactly; but there's a whole hell of a lot of people involved aside from W and his funny little monkey faces.
2006-10-04 14:38:05 · answer #10 · answered by . 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Saddam Hussein was contained before Bush's ill-advised invasion.
2006-10-04 14:36:01 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋