For starters, I am firmly against Bush, but it seems that most point the finger at him for all the increased violence. There has to be more to it than merely pointing a finger at one person?
I am being serious, by the way........LOL
What do you think?
2006-10-21 17:32:40 · 23 answers · asked by Enlightenme! 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
No. Bush takes heat for many things that he has nothing to do with.
The problem in the middle east is the islamic extremists causing wars between tribes. No one else can be blamed for that.
2006-10-21 17:35:59 · answer #1 · answered by sshazzam 6 · 3⤊ 3⤋
It has been a violent place for a very long time. I bet most people don't realize the first time we fought there was under the Jefferson administration.
Things really when downhill in the 70s when Carter and his be nice policy let Iran get out of control. It calmed down some with Regan because he was a strong leader. But the cold war was a major distraction and even then not much was really accomplished. Attacks happened all through the 90s and nothing was done to stop it. By the time Bush got things it was so out of hand already that it is staggering. He did not even have time to really get a handle on the situation, let alone have time to do anything major about it when 9-11 happened.
So, he has made some mistakes. But the situation was already screwed up. And just sitting back and being nice isn't going to stop that. It just makes us look weak and gives the impression that they could win.
Iraq would probably be over if we had gone in really hard and not worried about hearts and minds as much as respect. It also would probably be over if there wasn't so much noise about leaving, because that noise gives them hope.
2006-10-21 17:51:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
how are you able to blame one guy for each and all the violence? The conflict with Islam has been occurring for over 2 hundred years with the U. S., undergo in techniques "Barbary Pirates" throughout the time of George Washington's Presidency. Plus, ever in view that guy exchange into, guy has been violent, truthfully President Bush is to no longer blame for hundreds of thousands killed via islamofacists from the1300's till at present? the genuine question is, Is the Bush administration doing what it could to eliminate violence against the U. S. from the islamic international?
2016-10-15 07:09:43 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Islamic Jihadist's have always had felt hostile towards all other non-Muslims, but Bush was more the catalyst for the whole situation. They mainly just hate the US and it's allies, leaving the rest of the world alone. The Jihadist's found a common enemy and are now uniting their people by a common goal, that being fighting the invaders of the Muslim world who threaten their way of life.
2006-10-21 17:40:41 · answer #4 · answered by Yishai 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think finger pointing, passing the buck & laying the blame on ANYONE else to take the spotlight off of themselves is a BIG problem, led by the media & Yes!! all seriousness, the Democrats. They should ALL be working together instead of being two-faced, back stabbers.....
What I like to say is do NOT point a finger at ANYONE because there are ALWAYS 3 more pointed back at you!!!!
The middle east is the essence of violence. If you take away their guns, bombs, etc. they will STILL kill each other with rocks & sticks.... They are savages who are born & taught to kill & hate. Nothing is EVER going to change that....
2006-10-21 17:37:24 · answer #5 · answered by More Lies & More Smoke Screens 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No Bush is not solely responsible. The US government is. As long as US supports Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine and it's own in Iraq, there will be frustration and anger in the middle east.
2006-10-21 20:41:10 · answer #6 · answered by cowboy_cat 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They have continued to see the weakness in the U.S. after every terrorist attack that took place. This gave them the thought that they could defeat us so it has been increasing.
Also Iran's president Imafreakinidiot has said Armageddon is coming soon and Israel will fall. This spurs more violence.
We also back Israel (makes them hate us more).
We are among their countries where they can attack americans without actually getting inside the U.S.
2006-10-21 17:36:04 · answer #7 · answered by Squawkers 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
What do you think! What did the spy agencies nice little red cover book say?
Solely, no Primarily, Yes
He invaded Iraq! He destabilized the Middle East, and put Iran squarely in control of the region!
There were no terrorist in Iraq until Bush invaded it! And we are going to see some major attacks here, and he can't blame them on the democrats, just like he can't blame them because he chose to ignore an intelligence report which said "Bin Laden to Attack the US" given to Ms Rice, who lied about it!!
We created a whole people, the Iraqis. who for the most part hates the US! Bush thinks he is going to "STay the Course" and stick around for oil! I doubt that very seriously!
2006-10-21 17:42:23 · answer #8 · answered by cantcu 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Bush's main contribution was going into a situation for personal reasons in a part of the world of which he remains pig-ignorant.
Today was the first time he asked what should be done instead of telling the military what to do, Unfortunately he didn't invite any real expertise to the meeting (mainly because they have left the armed services).
As Artemus Ward said "It ain't whatcha don't know that'll kill ya, it's what you know for certain that ain't so,"
2006-10-21 17:40:27 · answer #9 · answered by Gaspode 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I am not a supporter either, but there is no way possible that one man is responsible for all the added violence in the middle east. There are fingers to point in all directions.
2006-10-21 17:35:08 · answer #10 · answered by tony p 1 · 4⤊ 2⤋