Not a war, but a real time military exercise involving the US involvement in a hostile occupation of a foreign country, Never could there be only one premise for such a full scale assault, but there are many agendas to serve. There are ones upon accidental discovery that the administration will reluctantly have to address only to the point at which they feel is necessary and there's the hidden ones, the real ones that will never be eluded to publicly no matter what ie:" the big picture" and then the media portrayed ones. The promoted or campaigned ones. At the onset it was brought on by a technique of "serious preemptive measures" in a strategy where no threat can be found you use a "what if" or "worst case scenario" for justification. That one being... "W of M D. and though plausible when examined further it didn't hold up to scrutiny.
Then it became "capture Saddam" and it came to pass so we could turn around and give him right back." Now your question "is it about Iraqi freedom? Had that been the original premise to go to war I don't think it would have had strong enough legs to distance the waters or sufficiently been believed at home, yet still pale in comparison to the selfish and senseless whims of a ruling elite and the their ambitions for global domination yet they suffice quite adequately as a smoke screen because by the time the fog clears they will have moved forward always two steps ahead for serving the real purposes, goals and ambitions. Rather than concern yourself with matters as these you should be asking,,,what;s next? In my opinion "we aren't ever coming home."
2006-12-21 21:02:59
·
answer #1
·
answered by Deciple 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
no, the good thing that he did is that he took sadam away coz iraq wasnt a safe place while sadam was there.....so now that george bush took sadam and did wht he want, what is the american army doing there????!!! i know some ppl from iraq and they told me that even though they didint feel safe while sadam was in iraq,but its sooooooooo much saffer than now!
i dont think its fair for hundreds of innocent to die just bcoz one person did a mistake...its not thier fault!!
2006-12-22 10:08:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by looly james 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
sadam killed millions and anyone who dared oppose him or stand up to him, the evidence is overwhelming.
whether or not the war is good or bad is not the issue or what is asked.
freedom has its cost (how many died during the amercican revolution and other wars?), don't know of any war or conflict where not one person was killed or hurt.
democracy doesnt happen over night, and those who oppse it are casuing the real problems in iraq.
2006-12-22 06:56:57
·
answer #3
·
answered by great one 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, Bush is the only reason to creating the problems to the iraq people.....the terrorists come after the war only...
2006-12-22 03:59:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by neela k 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Oh, yeah, Bush has freed Iraq from Saddam...to use as his own puppets. Himself, Cheney, and I'm sure lots of their other rich buddies are basically getting even richer from that whole conflict and innocent people's lives.
2006-12-22 03:57:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The only thing that George freed was the American people from a lot of tax money, and Haliburton the right to rip it off.
2006-12-22 05:59:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
i believe it was a personal vendetta between bush and saddam, and 9/11 was just a good excuse for him to act on it.
i understand that the troops we have are risking thier lives everyday, and i am behind each and every one of them to come home safely,, but i don't personally believe that those people should be over there. They should be home with their families.
2006-12-22 03:58:58
·
answer #7
·
answered by Silver Thunderbird 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
no the Bush didn't freed Iraq but he Freezed the Iraq to graveyard
2006-12-22 05:48:27
·
answer #8
·
answered by satyan 6 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
he sure did.
2006-12-22 23:20:59
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋