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

21 answers

It wasn't solely "Bush's Blunder". There was a supermajority of both houses of Congress who voted for war following the recommoendation of two bi-partisan committees and congressional leaders from both sides of the aisle.

http://www.freedomagenda.com/iraq/wmd_quotes.html

And of all the worst undertakings in world history, this is a minor one. Have you forgotten about the two world wars from the last century? Or how about the Crusades? Stalin killed 36,000,000 of his own citizens, and Hitler killed 13,000,000 people in his death camps.

2006-11-24 02:06:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

It's pure speculation what might have happened, had we not gone into Iraq! Had we not been bogged down in Iraq, I'm quite sure the US would have been a lot more aggressive in it's approach to an Iranian resolution! As it is now, the Israeli's will probably be the ones to resolve or escalate that problem.

The other scenario is N.Korea. There too, the US approach to this problem may have been more aggressive, had we not been pre-occupied in Iraq. So, for all we know, the Iraq occupation, for lack of better words, may be a blessing in disguise, for most of us.

The US intentions regarding Iraq haven't really changed that much, but the war has. GWB's biggest blunder was, for not supervising Rumsfeld more closely, or at least not having the joints chief's take a more active role. As it was, Rumsfeld had too much power and was pointed in the wrong direction.

I believe the 'blunder' issue remains to be seen. A lot depends on what Syria and Iran do in their expansionist ambitions in the middle east, or their attitude towards Israel. Remember, this whole middle east fiasco still hinges on Israel. This is why it started and this is what will escalate it. If it does escalate, well for now, we have boots on the ground to take a position in whatever direction it takes us.

2006-11-24 02:28:47 · answer #2 · answered by briang731/ bvincent 6 · 1 0

Biggest world blunder? No. I wouldn't put it on just Bush's shoulders. I blame Congress and all those other two faced liars that are elected in. Everyone is in such an uproar about how we need to get him out of there and blah blah blah. Then the man says Do It! and we get it done. Every day they are getting it done. Now a few of our troops die in the process and now everyones like Whoa! Guess what? This isn't a video game or some freaking TV series you dim wits. It's life and the enemy has guns too. Now the people that were all in an uproar are now giving the President a bunch of flack and resisting his needs to do more and supply more.......
No. This isn't Bush's fault. This is our fault. We elected these individuals. Not Bush.

2006-11-24 06:10:29 · answer #3 · answered by rugby_n_beer 2 · 0 0

The only way to really know if this is a true blunder would have been to not even go in. But then we would all be yelling at Bush for letting Saddam set up terrorists camps and selling them nukes. With five family members serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, I hear a completely different story. We have truly liberated millions. I find it scary when enemies of the US applaud the election results. Makes you wonder.

2006-11-24 02:13:56 · answer #4 · answered by J J 1 · 5 1

No, the worst undertakings in world history aren't necessarily tied to the US- how about Adolf Hitler in WWII? Now that was the worst undertaking in world history.. The situation in Iraq is small potatos compared to that.

2006-11-24 02:06:55 · answer #5 · answered by Debbie M 4 · 4 1

Whats Worl history?

2006-11-24 02:06:44 · answer #6 · answered by goodtimesgladly 5 · 2 2

jointly as he's, on stability, the worst president in US historical past, N O N E of the specifics which you declare are authentic. We had a plenty worse housing marketplace in the 1970's easily you do no longer have confidence that Hoover's presiding over the large melancholy did no longer produce extra job loss. look it up. Worst Inflation in 27 years, whilst the unique assertion is "in historical past"? Why decrease it to 27 years? We had two times this inflation 30 years in the past below...Carter. certainly Carter added two times as many cabinet posts as Bush, with the corresponding enhance in government length compounding in those departments nonetheless. Reagan holds the checklist for debt will enhance, we purely notice THIS debt because of the fact we don't have Reagan giving us jobs and desire. Worst dollar decline in ..huh? "a number of years"? that isn't evidentiary for worst president in "historical past" ( solid padding for the propaganda, however ) and we observed the dollar plummet in the 70's besides. Congress wrote and exceeded the Patriot Act, that's amazingly gentle in assessment IN historical past to the movements postponing civil liberties by Lincoln and FDR. each and every regulation gone by Congress is "Constitutional" until eventually ruled in any different case by the final courtroom. those parts of the Patriot Act which do no longer bypass that muster exchange into immediately void. undesirable techniques...the techniques are completed by the commanders in the sector, Bush does NO "techniques". the approach of invading Iraq is arguably between the hugest blunders in US historical past in need of our invasion of Canada, beginning the conflict of 1812. “the main spectacular propagandist technique will yield no fulfillment until eventually one regularly occurring theory is borne in techniques constantly - it could confine itself to 3 factors and repeat them many times”: Joseph Goebbels “Make the lie huge, make it straightforward, save asserting it, and at last they are going to have confidence it”: Adolph Hitler

2016-10-04 07:49:07 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

It may just turn out to be the best thing to ever happen in the Middle East if they dont pull our troops because in the next 30 years we might need a strong democratic ally in the middle east to help us with Lebanon

2006-11-24 02:18:33 · answer #8 · answered by josh h 2 · 3 1

Nah, I think maybe the crusades, world war one, world war two might just outclass Iraq by just a tad.

2006-11-24 03:53:26 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Are you inferring the 2,000+ dead will overtake the 50,000+ dead of Vietnam? I'd say we've got a long way to go to beat that 'blunder".

2006-11-24 03:17:01 · answer #10 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers