GWB is proposing spnding $170 Billion in 2007 to continue prosecuting the war. What is his motives for continuing the war?
2006-12-22 02:53:17 · 13 answers · asked by Julius S 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
He doesn't want to be a losing war president like Johnson.
2006-12-22 02:57:34 · answer #1 · answered by Snowshoe 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
He's prosecuting the war? I never heard that one.
But he'll stay in Iraq, and the next president will also. Regardless of their party lines. A Democrat will win most likely, and he/she will use the Iraq war, and the troop removal as a platform for winning the Presidency. But once there, and properly briefed, he/she will leave the troops there, and maybe send more in later.
I'm waiting for it. Democrats will have much easier time doing it....
2006-12-22 12:33:14 · answer #2 · answered by Hesse 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
1. It is NOT about oil
2. It is not about revenge against Saddam.
3. It is not about Usama Bin Laden.
=================
What it IS about.
1 Radical Islam has declared war on Israel, America and ALL friends of ours.
2. They want us to convert, or die.
=========================
By having a very near, very strong base in the ME, we will influence the neighboring countries. It has already shown signs of growing in Iran with the recent defeat of the more hardline candidates there. It is possible we won't have to fire a shot at Iran, they will fall from within to freedom and democracy. Theoratic rule is harsh and unyielding to the citizens there but the idea of western style freedom will prevail if we do.
Why? We finish this now or suffer for our cowardice in the long future to come. Like the idea of your Mom or wife wearing a Burka?
2006-12-22 11:05:56 · answer #3 · answered by Rich B 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ hes making a fortune so is Cheney! Also he has an ego, and no Johnson didnt lose Nam Nixon and Ford did the pull out thing, as your first kitty cat said. I know I was in Nam.If Bush was serious about revenge for 911 wed of killed Bin Ladden and invaded Saudi, as thast who financed the deal and all but one highjacker was Saudi. But ther're Geogre's pals
2006-12-22 12:05:20 · answer #4 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because he made a promise of helping Afghanistan and Iraq establish a democracy and what ever faults he might have he is a man of his word, like me, something that my wife admired about me. Unlike the typical liberal who lives by the motto when the tought gets going RUN.
2006-12-22 12:01:49 · answer #5 · answered by Ynot! 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Becasue we are at war. So you think its better to cut and run only to have the terrorists attack the US again on our own soil? It may not be fair to Iraq, but Iraq is the battlefield of the terrorists. If we cut and run in Iraq, the terrorists have won the war and we will pay the ultimate price.
2006-12-22 10:58:52 · answer #6 · answered by danzahn 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
You have forgotten about the towers huh??? Iraq is in the center of all the terrorist activity and we will have to maintain a military presence there for a long time to come.
2006-12-22 11:03:32 · answer #7 · answered by 3DDD 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i believe it is called sticking to what he had vowed to do and not risking his credibility with the rest of the world leaders. he pledged to restore order to Iraq before a total pull out of the troops. although it is understandable what he does, but the notion of going to war is greatly in his disfavor, but since he got himself into this quagmire, he can blame no one else except himself *maybe he doesnt even blame himself or feel guilt cuz of ulterior motives*
motive is to establish control and order within Iraq itself as the current situation is far from desired and a democratic society can not be established. which i believe is the govt. ultimate aim- to create a democratic country in the heart of middle east.
2006-12-22 10:58:36 · answer #8 · answered by blitz 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
He wants to continue this war because he is ignorant and also does not want to look like he did not accomplish anything in Iraq. for example, he said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was not. Iraq is in more chaos than before we went in there.
2006-12-22 11:08:27 · answer #9 · answered by kenachiouskyle 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I just want to bring up one point that most people forget.
the commies in the senate say look at Vietnam they turned out OK
well that depends on your definition of OK
however look back to Korea
we saved their *** from the north and look at them now
there one of our best trading partners and their economy is flourishing
2006-12-22 13:54:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋