Stabalizing the region is our objective, and to pull out now will cause much deeper problems.
2006-12-26 12:18:04
·
answer #1
·
answered by Shawn M 3
·
5⤊
3⤋
besides the indisputable fact that the tale did not end. It went on for 8 years and Bush even gave up attempting to win declaring that it replaced into as a lot because the subsequent president. @DouceBag...:: Germany began international Wars I and II. the international replaced into in probability of being occupied with the help of Germany and the U. S. Democratic president went to conflict to end it. The North Koreans with the help of known McArthur violating presidental and UN orders now to not bypass north of the thirty eighth parallel. known MacArthur replaced into relieved of duty because of it. The Bay of Pigs replaced right into a secret CIA undertaking. It failed because JFK ordered it halted antagonistic to the objections of the CIA correct brass. the extremely initiate of the Vietnam conflict replaced into interior the Eisenhower administration, JFK replaced into about to withdraw the troops we had there at the same time as he replaced into shot. Johnson and Nixon more suitable the conflict on suggestion of the U. S. military generals. z
2016-12-01 05:01:58
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
" a free and stable Iraq"
but what people don't mention is that could take decades. lebanon 1972-1991, that was a long civil war and it could have been longer, in fact in might start again.
my personel opinion is that bush just did this out of desperation and neccessity. it doesn't make sense to build and huge army and then not use it right. Clintons good foregin relations insured bush would have bad ones. just cause that the way it works. War is money. Oil is money, moey makes the world go round.
2006-12-26 12:27:23
·
answer #3
·
answered by sapace monkey 3
·
2⤊
2⤋
It seems the goal is to turn Iraq into exactly the same country it was before Bush invaded. That is, Bush wants Iraq to be:
---free of terrorists (which it was before the invasion – according the US Congress’ 9/11 and pre-war intelligence reports),
---free of any connection between Iraq and OBL, AQ, or any terrorist organization (which it was before the invasion – according the US Congress’ 9/11 and pre-war intelligence reports),
--- free of any terrorist training camps (which it was before the invasion – according the US Congress’ 9/11 and pre-war intelligence reports),
--- and, free of WMDs (which it was before the invasion – according the US Congress’ 9/11 and pre-war intelligence reports).
Now, Iraq is not only a training ground for terrorists, but a breeding ground for them as well. Every Iraqi who has been killed (and estimates are in the hundreds of thousands) was a member of a family, an ethnic group, and a Mosque. Now, every family member and friend of that individual hates America. That easily equates to millions of new enemies, an unknown number of which will become anti-America terrorists.
Because of Abu-Ghraib, Gittmo, and America’s general disregard for the rule of international law, the US has very few friends left in the world. This undoubtedly will translate into less and poorer intelligence than we could get, and that we need to stop future terror attacks.
In any case, Iraq and Bush’s goals are lost. He has no option except to begin withdrawing America’s troops by summer 2007. The Republican party does not want Iraq to be a factor in the 2008 presidential election, and that means distancing itself as far away from Bush and his Iraq disaster as possible.
********************************
K.K. -
That is seriously out of touch with the reality-based world. Saddam's own neighbors, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait did not even bother to patrol their own borders with Iraq and opposed the invasion because they knew it would result in a civil war, the deaths of thousands, and possibly millions, of innocent people, and the destablization in the region (and, therefore, a more dangerous world for all).
We did not stop violence, we boosted it into hyper-speed.
2006-12-26 12:55:08
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
3⤋
According to Bush, the USA should not be "Nation building." According to Bush "he is the great uniter". According to Bush "he is a compassionate conservative." According to Bush he is the "decider." He does not have a plan and he ask Democrats "where is your plan?" According to 2/3 of the Country Bush is a liar.
Impeachment is the only course of action. The people have spoken.
2006-12-26 12:24:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by jl_jack09 6
·
2⤊
2⤋
you are very right in asking this question. let Americans tell the world now , what their aim is.... and what their mission is... they must tell clearly cause no country has the power to stop Americans.... so they should clearly tell what their mission is.... to my opinion.... Oil is their mission. and they will try to achieve this mission.......take care.
2006-12-26 15:48:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by classic 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
To make Iraq as much like the US as possible. Think capitalism. Once Iraq's "conquered" then they can move on to China.
2006-12-26 12:24:16
·
answer #7
·
answered by Tishmay 3
·
0⤊
2⤋
To control the oil value and control the oil the world will need at the end of oil so that a few oil companies will have some insurance that they will stay rich as long as possible.
2006-12-26 12:22:20
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
The mission is to generate as much revenue as possible for the corporate gangsters who leased the White House for the Resident.
2006-12-26 12:18:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
4⤋
Military Hegemony.
2006-12-26 12:16:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Timothy M 5
·
2⤊
4⤋