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

Bush was advised by several Generals that we needed more troops initially-we should not disband the Iraqi army-we should worry about the conventional arsenals all over Iraq-we should worry about not things going over the border of Iraq upon invasion-but those people and weapons which may come in...it seems so many keys points were ignored...conventional wisdom indicates the basic approach to this war was developed by Bush-Rumsfeld and Cheney-how could these individuals have bungled things so badly??????

2006-12-09 02:53:30 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

4 answers

I think the problem is we are forced to be too PC anymore in all things.

I would have revisited WWII myself....

Drop notices that your assis going to be kicked at x time and date

Carpet bomb every major city in the country totally wiping out the infastructure , if you are cold hungry and in the dark you are more apt to surrender

Move in a million men and every tank on the lot in start from the south and steamroll all the way up, still dropping notices allowing surrender much like how Storm went, if you have a gun in your hands you get shot

We needed a severe tour de force , right now they know its just a matter of time before we tuck our tail and leave, they know the kill tally is the most imprtant thing to the american population, and that we lost more ppl in a few hours on a pacific island invasion in WWII than we have lost in 3 years over there, they know our will is going to break, so all they need to do is shoot at a few troops get a couple kills and we'll give up soon

2006-12-09 03:09:18 · answer #1 · answered by lethander_99 4 · 0 0

I think most Americans were conned into believing this was a justifiable war because Bush lied to Congress (and the public) about 'weapons of mass destruction'. We were coming off the heels of a major national tragedy, and emotions were running high. It seemed prudent (if not logical) to go to 'war' with some one - anyone. Hussein was the best target because:
1) The Bush family had a personal vendetta against Saddam ever since the days of Desert Storm when Bush #41 was criticized and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time;
2) The giant U.S. military-industrial complex needed another 'war' to boost its sagging profits;
3) Dick Cheney wanted all that OIL swimming underneath Iraq's sands so he and his Exxon buddies could get richer and richer and richer keeping American motorists 'hooked' on cheap, easily-accessible foreign OIL.
When people started waking up to those realities, they started turning against the 'war'.
Bush & Co. bungled the whole thing, from the very beginning. When the body counts began to rise, people began to wonder about the Bush adminsitration's lack of competency and credibility. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are woefully incompetent, and the American people finally has recognized it.
Now we're in a mess that won't end for generations. -RKO-

2006-12-09 03:27:11 · answer #2 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 0 0

Yes

2006-12-09 04:02:17 · answer #3 · answered by Richard D 2 · 0 0

yes i do...but i can only speak for myself and everyone i know really. :)

2006-12-09 04:19:25 · answer #4 · answered by lucky 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers