do you think. bush and blair went into iraq and afganistan, with the purose of taking over the middle east and turning islamic states into democratic states. (1) because they know this is impossible (2) they know this will cause civil war/s (3) they get to take over the regions and enforce new world order.
2006-11-05 00:28:10 · 17 answers · asked by heaton_russell 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
bush has murdered over 2 million iraqies in the time he ulawfully entered iraq.....it was not a lawful war, so he is just as bad as sadam hussain. i fought i the first gulf war and even that war was bollocks.
2006-11-05 00:35:18 · update #1
That is the new Imperialism. You are either with the American Empire, or against it.
2006-11-05 00:30:07 · answer #1 · answered by sangheilizim 4 · 4⤊ 4⤋
People are at their happiest when they have a common enemy. If you spoke to people who lived through world war two (mostly in Europe as day-to-day life was largely unaffected in the US) they will say that they have seldom been happier - even though they lived through incredible hardship. Since this was realised the west has almost always had a common enemy. We fell out with our great allies the USSR in a couple of years after the war, so much so that we were on the brink of nuclear war throughout several decades. Since the USSR collapsed we've not really had a common enemy, but now a new one has emerged - international islamic terrorism, something everyone in the 'free world' can hate (whether justifiably, or to such an extent is of course debatable).
In 1984 Ingsoc was at war constantly, either with eastasia or eurasia - there was very little fighting, little influence over day-to-day life, few deaths, yet the country was rabid with hatred for their enemy, even though it can change at the drop of a hat, and your once mortal blood enemy is your greatest friend and defender of freedom, and vice versa. If our governments like all the surveilance techniques of 1984 why not adopt the foreign policy too? Sadam Hussein was our friend in the 80's after all.
2006-11-05 00:45:52 · answer #2 · answered by Mordent 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NONE of the above
Bush and Blair went to Iraq for two reasons:
1) Oil
2) Protect and secure Israel.
All the stories about WMD, Democracy, Saddam, war on terror...ALL RUBBISH!
2006-11-05 04:33:53 · answer #3 · answered by Abularaby 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you are partly wrong on reasons (1) and (2) ---(1) they just too naive and they did not know it was a impossible task in advance.
(2) they did not know it would cause civil war because Bush and Blair did not know the differences among sunnis ,shites and kurds.
they just thought people hated Saddam and if they could get rid of him , people will forever indebt to them.
On point (3) you are absolutely correct.
2006-11-05 03:29:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
If Blair was a Nazi i'm qiute sure he wouldnt be letting 100's of thounsands of imigrants in to the country - draining millions of working English people's Tax, Housing, Jobs etc etc etc etc etc!
2006-11-05 00:36:23 · answer #5 · answered by Pete F 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
WOW.... the liberal propagandist are out in force today. I suppose that your solution is to link arms, sing Kum Ba Yah and then bow down to Mecca 5 times a day...
2006-11-05 01:37:40 · answer #6 · answered by lordkelvin 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
we have a solution in the British national party. this party would not get involved in illegal wars, like Iraq and would bring troops home with immediate effect. they would not force multiculturalism and that is where britains problems are.
2006-11-05 02:08:30 · answer #7 · answered by muttentrumpet 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Although it's total rubbish, I'll give the answer you seek:
they want a new world order, and the twins will rule by dual queenship.
2006-11-05 00:32:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
No Nazis are socialists. They are closer to Demon-rats!
2006-11-05 00:37:41 · answer #9 · answered by Bawney 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
i think bush went in because he is a control freak and blair is his lap dog.
2006-11-05 00:38:16 · answer #10 · answered by aunty m 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋