English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-11-11 03:21:40 · 30 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

30 answers

George Bush and his British croonies. Ofcourse one can't forget his Man Friday Donald Rumsfield to add to the list.

2006-11-11 03:30:15 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 2

The invasion is caused by the invaders - both sides could have done different in the times of the UN inspections and maybe had a different outcome ... maybe, though, it was a brave and beneficial for all Westerners thing to do.
Without people giving things like this a try, could we ever prevent wars and end suppression ?
In an ideal world, international intervention would never be necessary. In an ideal country in a not so ideal world, actions would be taken to try to prevent further harm being done to the most suppressed and misrepresented people around the world. Think of how many attrocities around the world would never have happened if the regime responsible for it had been paid a visit at the right time with the right comments & threats being made, persuading them not to commit them.
And think of how many genuine (& not major corporations funded) democratic systems the world could have, if the people of every country could give each other sufficient support to achieve this.

2006-11-11 04:05:06 · answer #2 · answered by profound insight 4 · 0 1

The USA was an ally of Saddam when he went to war with Iran and was quite happy to supply arms to Iraq. The UN then went to war against Iraq when Saddam invaded Kuwait. However the UN mandate did not go far enough and Saddams army was allowed to retreat back to his own country without being destroyed and left Saddam in control. The UN then placed sanctions against Iraq and sent in teams of personnel to seek out the so called weapons of mass destruction. George Bush decided to over-ride the UN and take out Saddam without the UN to secure the Middle East oil supply. He recruited suitably gullible cronies on a crusade against terrorism and landed the Coalition in the biggest mess since Vietnam. Its one game to wage war at high level with smart bombs and another for internal security. So to answer the question the UN should have been allowed to continue but Bush needed to kick as* after 9/11 and he went to war against an unpopular regime to restore American credibility.

2006-11-11 04:12:24 · answer #3 · answered by Daddybear 7 · 1 0

A war is always started by an invader .In this case it`s no secret who the invaders were, no matter what our president or prime minister had done would any of us thank another country for dropping bombs on us destroying our country calling us insurgents and terrorists if we had the cheek to attempt to fight back .Then even expect us to be grateful for what they had done.If we couldn`t accept being treated like that why the hell do so many people think that another country should . What.i find un believable is people in the west accusing Arab countries of wanting to turn us into Muslim states, but the evidence shows the west going into their countries and trying to change their lives to fit our agenda

2006-11-11 04:28:23 · answer #4 · answered by keny 6 · 1 0

As with most things in this subject it is easy to point fingers and say one person is responsible for war in, and it is really a set of circumstances and timing, a set of different people intertwined with differen goals. There were errors in judgment, either by error or on purpose that led up to the discussion as to go to war. That being said, George Bush is totally responsible for the mis-prosecution of the war in Iraq, and should be held accountable for his actions. Low of 150,000 to as many as 655,000 Iraqi have died, more every day. Almost 3,000 Americans have died. Many, many, more wounded and deformed forever. Based on a lie, he should have to stand trial for his crimes against humanity.

2006-11-11 03:38:31 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Fundamentally it's the USA. They engineered Saddam's rise to power, sold arms to him and enjoyed a strong international business relationship (Donald Rumsfelt was pictured sitting with Saddam celebrating the Baath party's rise to power on the same day as his brother was gassing the Kurds. This all changed when Saddam stopped playing ball but America still failed to support an anti Baathist uprising at the end of the Gulf war which Saddam violently put down. Then followed years of infective and immoral sanctions by the Clinton administration and Bush got his excuse to wage war again on Sept 11.

2006-11-11 03:43:35 · answer #6 · answered by bumbaaba 1 · 5 1

George W. Bush , and those that allowed him to send our young men and women to Iraq , without a question as to , why Iraq ?
They are there now and we have to find a way to end this fight peacefully . We can't allow one man to make this country humiliated by his , stay the course , answer to everything .
We have the bravest solders in the world and my sons are among them , but their resources are being squandered in Iraq .

2006-11-11 03:57:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Saddam Hussein??Where on earth did you get that from??Reading a bit too much of Bush's propeganda i think. Saddam was in power for over 20 years before his downfall and America didnt give a crap about those "poor" people under his dictatorship. And as i'm sure you know the fact that Iraq is now in worse condition than it ever was under Saddam. Don't ever believe for a second he was the cause of American and British invasion it's all down to oil and money for Bush. Have your own mind and don't let propeganda take it over. Open your eyes and find out the true facts for yourself.Don't support the war on Iraq.....

2006-11-11 03:33:02 · answer #8 · answered by established1922 2 · 4 2

What we all seem to have forgotten is Rummy, Cheney, Wolfowitz along with other neo-cons tried getting Clinton to invade Iraq in the 90's, Haliburton was going to take over their oil fields. Something else America does not want to talk about is one week before bush started his little drum to the Iraq war, Saddam had announced he was going to the euro and not the dollar for his trade in oil, this really pissed off neo-cons.

2006-11-11 03:28:42 · answer #9 · answered by Kelly L 5 · 6 1

Saddam Insane is responsible for the war in Iraq. If he had things to do over again, he would humble down and tow the line.

2006-11-11 03:40:29 · answer #10 · answered by fmf3 2 · 1 3

George Bush and his associates in the oil companies, now stealing Iraq's oil.

2006-11-11 08:08:04 · answer #11 · answered by jaime r 4 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers