Do you think it's ironic that there was no civil war in Iraq?

Question

until Bush decided to make things better for them? Who do you think is responsible for more Iraqi deaths, Saddam or Bush?

Answer 1

I think it's ironic that, after all this effort, the thing Iraq needs most is a ruthless dictator.

Answer 2

It is interesting to me that Kofi Annan on Friday said Iraq is in a civil war. Tony Blair said Iraq is in a civil war.On Tuesday before that, Colin Powell said Iraq is in a civil war. On Friday Bush says there is no civil war. Bush truly studied Hitler well, who said , 'the bigger the lie, the more it should be told, and they will eventually believe it'. I wonder if lying about WMD are ground for an impeachment - I guess not if he didn't say it under oath. Never mind the fact that 250 million AMericans heard him say it.

Answer 3

I consider what's going on in Iraq worse than civil war. Saddam screwed up the country on his own, but our intervention there has wreaked havoc in its own terrible way. I don't neccessarily think it's irony - it's just really sad that things went this way. We elected a boob and it's not ironic that he would do a boobtastic job orchestrating a war. His term is almost up, though - at least we can be happy about that much.

Answer 4

Bush is. The Iraqi knew what they had with Saddam, they knew what he was all about. They trusted Bush when he invaded to make things better for them, isn't that what he promised them he was going to do.? His flippant attitude thru all this make him more guilty than anyone.

Answer 5

Well there could be no civil war...what do you think Saddam Hussein is up on charges for? He killed everyone who tried to rise up against him.

Bush is an idiot with a bigger agenda and you should research conspiracy theory videos instead of looking for Britney's beav on the net.