2006-10-23 03:56:13 · 15 answers · asked by candy 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Had Bush not stolen the first election, we would have never instigated an illegal, unconstitutional war against Iraq, which in no way threatened, provoked or attacked the U.S.A.
Bush's handlers ordered him to declare war on Iraq for only two reasons: 1) The Bush family had a vendetta against Saddam Hussein since Desert Storm, and wanted to 'settle the score'; 2) Dick Cheney wants all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sand so that he and his Exxon-Mobil buddies can get richer and richer and richer.
Had Bush not stolen the second election, this war could have been stopped. "Cut and run" isn't a bad strategy when you're being pummeled. There comes a time when it's prudent to take stock of the carnage you've imposed on the world and - as 'the decider' - make the decision to change course.
So far, a bullheaded, moronic U.S. President has allowed his puppeteers to dangle him in front of the TV cameras so that oil companies can rape Iraq of all its OIL; so the huge U.S. military-industrial complex can continue earning obscenely bloated profits; and so that wealthy elitists can earn massive dividends from soaring stock investments in the armaments industries. At what cost? 3,000 innocent American lives lost in the World Trade Center disaster; 655,000 Iraqis killed; almost 3,000 U.S. soldiers dead; thousands of Iraqis left homeless; and 21,000 U.S. soldiers permanently injured or disabled.
Don't kid yourself: the only reason we're in this war is because the nameless, faceless wealthy elitists, special interest groups, military-industrial complex powers, lobbyists, oil companies, and other big business entities WANT us there for their own avarice. That's why they installed Bush as President; that's why they staged the 9-11 attacks; that's why they have instilled fear and doubt in the citizenry - all for PROFIT. -RKO-
2006-10-23 04:34:18 · answer #1 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
(1) The cost of training, equipping, and keeping even a single combatant in the field has grown so much that only a small force is justifiable. It costs too much to train some draftee that you will only lose in 18 months or so back into the civilian populace. (2) When you start drafting, you draw in a huge influx of Category 4's. You bring in sociopaths, degenerates, and others who can't deal with authority or society well in the first place, give them weapons, and expect them to perform peacekeeping duties. To expect such well-mannered behavior is fantasy. Communities are no longer as close knit. People are not as well behaved or patriotic. Drugs and broken homes are rampant, and the product of those evils run in gangs. You want to bring those into a draft? (3) An all-volunteer force best fits the ideals presented in our Constitution. To force everyone from pacificts to criminals against their will to participate in what is essentially supposed to be an endeavour of civic duty in defense of one's way of life violates every notion of freedom guaranteed in the United States. (4) There are better ways to criticize the incumbent President than to force those already in uniform to babysit complete idiots who may or may not shoot their betters in the back, and to make the troops watch scarce defense dollars go towards recruiting, training, and deploying complete wastrels. There is no need for a draft. The casualties do not justify a draft. The pace of combat does not justify a draft. An expansion of active duty services, yes. But not ever a draft.
2016-05-22 01:09:11 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
How much power does an American president have? They're just puppets. So maybe Bush was just good for this role, keep the simple minded fooled.
2006-10-23 05:00:32 · answer #3 · answered by airmonkey1001 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, as a matter of fact I don't believe that there would have been a war if he wasn't in office. Look at the way Bill Clinton kept the piece, we always seem to go to war whenever a Bush is in office.
2006-10-23 04:05:18 · answer #4 · answered by juicie813 5 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yeah Bush isn't the only one who thought war would be a good idea!
2006-10-23 04:03:28 · answer #5 · answered by xochelsxo16 3 · 1⤊ 3⤋
why wouldn't we? we had to find out who attacked us after 9/11 and go after them right? we obviously would NOT have be in iraq but we still would have been fighting terrorists in afghanistan or have done a couple air strikes in pakistan...
2006-10-23 04:55:08 · answer #6 · answered by john s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. If fact, if it was not King George, we would not have have gone to war with Iraq in the first place.
2006-10-23 04:42:36 · answer #7 · answered by williamvanzant 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No...we would have surrendered after 911 and you would be wearing a burqha right now and probably cooking up a pot of rice instead of posting on Yahoo Answers...wife number 3
2006-10-23 04:34:41 · answer #8 · answered by smitty031 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No, or for that matter have gone to war if it were not for Bush
2006-10-23 04:06:43 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes, we would still be at war, because THIS secret and evil group...
http://www.rense.com/general58/suspre.htm
wants to win THIS secret "prize"!...
http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_Strayreality/iraq.htm
2006-10-24 02:56:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋