Because we're not imperialist Brits.....you don't think the Brits did such a great job with Ireland, do you?
2006-12-21 13:50:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by fearslady 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
One problem with that assumption is why the innocent Saddam Hussein would allow UN inspectors only limited access to weapon storage areas. The paradox of, 'We have no such weapons' and 'but don't look there'. The use of large quantities of poisonous gas on the northern Kurdish population might also be considered as possible confirmation of WMDs.
2016-05-23 09:33:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Barbara 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
He wants Iraq to retain its sovereignity, but also to be able to stand on its feet. He wants to neutralize every threat to the Iraqi government, which is so farfetched that I can't even explain it.
Bush is NOT a realist and has no idea what to do anymore. Thus, he does absolutely nothing to speed up progress while simultaneously fattening his, and Cheney's, wallets with the success of Halliburton's operations in Iraq.
2006-12-21 13:50:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mister E 2
·
2⤊
1⤋
Because it's not 300 years ago.
2006-12-21 13:53:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by higg1966 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'd be happier if we turned Iran into a smoking hole in the ground with a little radioactive oil in the bottom.
2006-12-21 13:49:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 5
·
4⤊
2⤋
We're a democratic republic, not an imperial monarchy..
2006-12-21 14:00:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by eatmorec11h17no3 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
the reason we're having so much trouble in Iraq is because they don't want us there...
2006-12-21 13:49:02
·
answer #7
·
answered by blank 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
that's a good idea.
also we'd have a good place to ship our trash to.
2006-12-21 13:52:50
·
answer #8
·
answered by Curious_One 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Indian's didn't have explosives.
2006-12-21 13:51:08
·
answer #9
·
answered by Kim 4
·
1⤊
1⤋
u mean he isnt going to do that? i thought for sure as hell he was going to set up a colony... damn...
2006-12-21 13:52:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by ryanisalifestyle 5
·
2⤊
1⤋