out of them instead of pussyfooting around about it? That's the reason I hate Bush, I was raised if your going to do something do it right, maybe if he would have done that right to began with the rest of the world would have a little more respect for the USA!!! Anyone else feel the same way I do on this issue?
2006-12-09 14:47:48 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You have to wonder don't you. His father took the advice of Gen. Colin Powell and went in to Kuwait with overwhelming force, won a quick victory, and went home. That Dubbya did not do that has to raise questions about his motives, for he had the same advice, and most certainly his father would have told him the same thing. I think we just don't want to believe that he wants to be there for a long time in an unstable situation. His is not there to prevent disorder, but to preserve it. If we are raised to ask the right questions, we need to ask ourselves why he would do this, what does he hope to gain from this strategy? If we do that, we will get to make some sense out of a policy that otherwise makes no sense at all. We did bomb the crap out of Iraq before and during our invasion.
2006-12-09 14:50:54 · answer #1 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Bush had two people in his Cabinet at the time of the Iraq invasion, Don Rumsfeld and Colin Powell. Powell, a former four-star general and Chairman of the Join Chiefs of Staff, supported a doctrine that said you only go to war like this with overwhelming firepower. He warned Bush to take half a million troops and a strong international consenses. Rimsfeld, a career political horse-trader without one day of military experience, said that the US could win this war all on its own and with minimal troops because the Iraqi people would be so glad to be liberated from Saddam that they would love and trust us.
George believed Rumsfeld and fired Powell.
And the nation weeps.
2006-12-09 15:03:57 · answer #2 · answered by Chredon 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
When did you get back from Iraqistan General? I do agree that we should have taken a 'more serious' tact in regards to quelling the unrest after the initial invasion and to do that we needed more folks on the ground. This was a botched operation from the 'get go'. Proper planning prevents poor performance. When our people and others are at life's risk let's be little more certain than "oops, I fudged, never mind. Oh, and could you folks in the military rotate back in the sh--t again". We have a great military when the Generals take operational control from beginning to end. Not some assistant in the Sec. of Def. office. Who planned post invasion operations?
2006-12-09 15:02:03 · answer #3 · answered by Joe Schmo from Kokomo 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ummm no.
There would be no one to get the oil out of the ground for us anymore and only a small percent of the people in Iraq are actually terrorist. We never should have gone to Iraq in the first place, the government knew there was no WMDs but they still pressed the issue to the public as if there were. Bush only wanted the Oil.
Edit: All the terrorist have gone to Africa now. Why not bomb all of Africa?
2006-12-09 14:54:32 · answer #4 · answered by Toxie 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Yes. Maybe we could get points from the rest of the world.---Like 10 points for every little girl we murdered--20 points for an old woman, and an extra 10 if she's blind.
I'm sure the world will love us for indiscriminate bombing of civilians.
Maybe you should read what you write.
Strange ideas you have about respect.
CHREDON---Colin Powell is of the old school ,who believe every war should be fought w/ overwhelming force; but we should have learned from Russia's mistake in Afghanistan .Their numerous troops became just more targets for small bands of a hit-and-
run enemy.What was needed was small, specially trained forces to fight them.This is what Rumsfeld tried to do; but it's hard to fight an enemy who hides amongst civilians.
2006-12-09 15:03:55 · answer #5 · answered by big j 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
we could easy fight this war from the air, and probably do just as well or better than we are now. however, because we have ethics and morals, we do our best not to kill civilians unless it's an absolute critical target. it would be easy ot turn Iraq into a crater but because we don't want to wipe out innocents we instead put our own lives on the lines for the sake of theirs. ( unlike certain other military organizations who think it's ok to, say, knock down two skyscrapers full of people)
2006-12-09 15:04:47 · answer #6 · answered by f0876and1_2 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Does it matter to you that Bush lied about going in there in the first place. Why bomb a place where the US didn't belong?
How can Americans hate so much they would bomb an entire country that did nothing to them? And what about the civilians?
2006-12-09 15:00:13 · answer #7 · answered by Reba K 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Bombing the "CRAP" never has really ever succeeded with any country. The natural human tendency is to bounce back from adversity and even if you use a thousand nuclear bombs, it is unlikely that you can decimate a whole people. Remember the Nazis tried it with the Jews and it failed utterly. Diplomacy would have helped along with an iron hand.
2006-12-09 14:51:48 · answer #8 · answered by defOf 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well the I actually agree with you, before people start hating, think about this. The only reason we haven't done that is because you will kill thousands of innocent women and children. But have you guys seen the news and videos? Americans have killed more innocent people than the terrorist.(in fact the terrorist killed themselves).So might as well!!! I think its totally wrong to do this, but F$#!# we are killing thousands of innocent lives everyday.
2006-12-09 14:54:43 · answer #9 · answered by A0Dki11z 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Oh definitely.
The same amount of respect you'd give to a spoiled, drunk 15 year old with a gun.
(My apologies to Gus Forsyth - those lyrics are just too good not to use)
2006-12-09 15:44:10 · answer #10 · answered by blue.green_eyes 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋