please give a yes or no answer then talk if u want to...because im doin an estimation
2006-10-26 01:59:31 · 17 answers · asked by GIRL HUNTER 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
Doubtlessly, yes.
2006-10-26 02:05:55 · answer #1 · answered by tanmax DM 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
I think this problem was going to happen no matter what but when Bush took office it kinda hurried it along. He started out wanting to finish his FATHERS war and was determined to get crap started even if he had to LIE to do it.. I also feel that they had plans for sept 11 if Bush took office !!! Now that all this is full blown we don`t need to retreat or we will for sure be doomed.Bush has made alot of mistakes and because of them our lives and our futers will be changed for ever. If he had waited and tried harder for the backing of the U.N. things WOULD BE DIFFERENT. Maybe not the situation but maybe we would have more help and better public opinion across seas. Bush is making alot of enimies towards us. I feel sorry for the person who has to come in next election and deal with and /or clean up his MESS
2006-10-26 02:57:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No. What a stupid question for any reason. That would imply that the POTUS would be sending out agents in mufti to target civilian targets for the purpose of a radical purpose, religious or otherwise. This POUTS is the hammer that will stamp out Islamo fascism and will bring peace to the world.
2006-10-26 02:04:19 · answer #3 · answered by canela 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is an ego problem. The mission of new world order was started by the Senior George Bush and the junior Bush is trying to complete it. He always talk about freedom of people but who has given him right to intervine in the matters of other countiers to get freedom. Who has appointed him policeman to lookafter others. I know Saddam is a bad man but this was the duty of Iraqi people to puch him out. UNO is useless, it is being used by USA to attact others.
If USA has nuclear capability why others should not have. Bush and others must distroy all their capabilities to produce nuclear bomb first, then they have every right to stop others. Rules should be uniform for every one. The world has already decided what is Bush.
2006-10-26 02:21:23 · answer #4 · answered by ? 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, Bush is not the father of terrorism. Leo Strauss is.
2006-10-26 02:04:32 · answer #5 · answered by shrill alarmist, I'm sure 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No - I do not think that Bush is the Father of Terrorism - but he is darn close to it!
And he does seem to be creating more Terrorists then we can kill.
2006-10-26 02:06:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
No. That doesn't make sense. Terrorism has been around a long time. I remember when I was little terrorists were hijacking planes from Lebanon. It's nothing new.
2006-10-26 02:04:41 · answer #7 · answered by only p 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
NO!!!
We've been under attack by terrorists since 1979. Those had nothing whatsoever to do with President Bush.
2006-10-26 02:07:34 · answer #8 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.He used it as an excuse to invade Iraq and to declare a ludicrous "war on terrorism".
2006-10-26 02:20:39 · answer #9 · answered by up urs 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
no,but you have a future in the Democratic Party, They dont blame the Terrorist for their actions, They blame Bush
2006-10-26 05:18:32 · answer #10 · answered by Zane S 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
2006-10-26 02:02:32 · answer #11 · answered by sun f 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋