Iraq! I do not agree with either. How can he be such a hypocrit?
2006-10-17 14:24:37 · 12 answers · asked by 10 pts for me? 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
To:Ah Ha: yes , I do have an idea of what I just typed. I typed it. What's your answer?
2006-10-17 14:29:16 · update #1
ronnie b: let me refresh your memory. When Bush (note I say Bush went to war not the US) the UN did not back up or approve in fact was AGAINST and did not support the decision. This is the foundation of my question.
2006-10-17 14:32:22 · update #2
Mr Boof- Yes, there were resolutions against Iraq before the war BUT the UN was AGAINST the war that Bush started. So reread my question, think, and then answer my question. Thank you.
2006-10-17 14:36:26 · update #3
THAT IS EXACRTLY WHAT ITS CALLED YOU PEGED IT RIGHT ON THE HEAD "HYPOCRIT" OF THE WORST KIND BUT HE HAS MORALES AND FAMILY VALUES.
2006-10-17 14:27:55 · answer #1 · answered by roy40372 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The whole premise of your question is false.
The war in Iraq was preceded by Iraq's refusal to meet any of the UN's mandates.
Unfortunately, some of the big players in the UN were sleeping with Saddam - and they didn't want to see the oil spigot turned off.
And it's not only the US that's upset about North Korea's nuclear ambitions - it's a whole bunch of neighboring countries as well as most of the European countries.
2006-10-17 21:34:45 · answer #2 · answered by LeAnne 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There were UN resolutions AGAINST Iraq - not us!! What the HEY! are you talking about? Think before you type - you'll come across as being smarter that way!
No need to rethink - my answer stands!! Maybe the UN is obsolete and ineffective, and should not make resolutions unless they can be acted on. How much did Kofi and Kofi Jr make off oil for food? That's all that needs to be said about the UN!
2006-10-17 21:30:14 · answer #3 · answered by Mr. Boof 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
He has been since he was elected into office. He has contradicted his own words so many times, people have become numb and immune to it, which is sad...apathy abounds, and in some cases even turned into blind denial of the truth. America needs a serious wake-up call to realize that our president's word should never be the end-all-be-all. Our country was founded on this principle.
2006-10-17 21:29:34 · answer #4 · answered by Katie 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Because Bush and his cabal are affraid to go after a legitimate WMD threat, They just love being the bully and raping countries of whatever they want.
2006-10-17 21:31:02 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Nothing against you, it's the other people:)
Wear do you get your info? from your butt?
Yes, your question, very ironic..
Now it sounds like war with N Korea, Great!!!
We don't have enough resources.
And our president doesn't have enough brains.
2006-10-17 21:36:15 · answer #6 · answered by shoot.bang 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dear ronnie b.............Bush went against the UN he invaded Iraq.Check it out
2006-10-17 22:22:56 · answer #7 · answered by Paul I 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
My Dear,
The Victors write the rules, good or bad, it's all about them not us the citizens
2006-10-17 21:27:53 · answer #8 · answered by man of ape 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bush is an idiot. He does one thing, and then condemns others for doing the same. DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!
2006-10-17 21:27:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
huh?....you are confused honey...bush didnt go against the U.N....some lame brain lib told you that, please get the real facts,
bush did this because he was concerned about terror inside our country...most of the world intel said it needed to be done btw
2006-10-17 21:29:02 · answer #10 · answered by ronnie b 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋