2007-01-06 19:50:40 · 16 answers · asked by Moondog55 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Absolutely, I have confidence in him. And I think he's made alot of good decisions even though theres alot of idiots that don't approve, becuase they don't understand.
2007-01-06 20:02:33 · answer #1 · answered by TEX 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I'm going to stand with the vast majority of Americans on this one and say that I seriously doubt it, now. Notice how the subject of Bin Laden has just sort of dropped off of the radar? Well, the Bush family and the Bin Ladens are friends from way back and you don't just kill the son of a multi-billionaire, right? I'm sure that's how George sees it. George has always desired to be a dictator. He's stated so in an interview a few years ago. Anyway, I hear there's a job opening for him in Iraq; since IF he even dreams of continuing on with this war much less instating a draft.....he and his constituents will face certain "death by impeachment"; I grant you that. An outgoing congress woman started a bill in that direction already, and this bill to start the impeachment process against Bush, Cheney and Rice for committing various crimes against the American people and our Constitution has already been seconded, I believe. It may take some time, but it's on the way to the floor of the House. So considering this, why now do you think George is pushing this "new" idea of his, hmmm? It's just another stupid diversion.
If their Prime Minister can't handle the heat then he wasn't much of one to begin with ,and our people need to come home. It's as simple as that. Their part of the job is done.
2007-01-07 07:17:11 · answer #2 · answered by keri_lynn4u 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They need to chop the country into three. The northern part should be given to the Kurds, with Mosul as its capital. The central part should be given to the Sunni with Bahgdad as its capital. And the southern part to the Shia with Basra as its capital. Then our troops can leave with honor and the people there can be happy.
First off, there was no such thing as Iraq when the first World War was over. It was part of the Ottoman Empire (who were allies with the German Kaiser and the Central Powers) and for several milleniums it was called Mesopatamia. The middle east had no define borders except the empires that ruled over it. All of these borders that you see was created by Winston Churchill after World War 1. He's the one that caused all this mess we've been seeing for the past 60+ years.
Check it out when the nation borders began:
http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html
Everyone in the Middle East has been fighting each other for thousands of years even before Islam and Christianity was around. Some of the nearby countries (Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Persia, Arab oil Gulf States) could probably do something about the fighting but they're just watching from the sidelines (helping some of the militias) and letting the US do all the work for them. This is an ancient war that the young United States is in the middle of that we have no business in. It'll really explode soon.
As for trying to spread democracy to them. It doesn't work. It's the same as spreading communism by Soviet force in Eastern Europe and Asia. You cannot force your (foreign) ideas on other people. That's wrong. It took several years on their own to come up with a constitution and a revolution for the British and Spanish colonies in the Americas and France to finally be independent and become real democracies. They have to build democracy on their own without foreign help.
Imperial Amnesia
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/54a/051.html
2007-01-07 04:52:45 · answer #3 · answered by James 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.
The best thing for him would be Impeachment. America
is just another "Side" in the conflict. Shiite's, Sunni's,
and Americans, All killing each other off.
Impeachment would probably stop his idea about Iran.
With a new Commander of ground forces being a Navy man makes me wonder if navy ships will be brought in so they can drop bombs in Iran. That would make the Navy Admiral in good position to take over and direct navy
operations. Why in the world would Bush put a Navy man
in charge of an Army. How Does that make the Generals Feel? This Conflict gets messier all the time.
2007-01-07 04:24:15 · answer #4 · answered by Answers 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No. This isn't really a war. It's just us getting shot at. As long as we're there, there will be no shortage of people who want to shoot at us. We can't kill them all. What we can do is get out and allow the Iraqis to to the inevitable: duke it out. We in the U.S. are so used to the concept of freedom that we think everybody else in the world understands it, too. The truth is that the only concept of freedom that the Iraqis know is power. As long as you're the one in power, you are free. And the only way you maintain your power is by oppressing everyone else. So in the end, it's either going to be the Shia oppressing the Sunni or vice versa, and the Kurds will still get the shaft. Only time will tell, and the quicker we get out of the way, the quicker they can get down to blowing each other up instead of us. I realise this is a rather cynical view of things, but hey, reality sucks sometimes.
2007-01-07 04:57:07 · answer #5 · answered by J F 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, I think this mess will be for whoever comes to power after Bush leaves. The Iraqis are using the same strategy the Afghanis used against the Russians. Russia fought Afghanistan for 10 years and bled them dry. That's why the Soviet Union finally collapsed. They've even admitted on videotape that they want to do the same thing to the U.S. Bleed it dry, economically. They're doing a great job of it, too.
2007-01-07 05:53:12 · answer #6 · answered by Rico Suave 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
George Bush main problem now is how to get out of Iraq with honour, with out ending in history books as another vietnam!
2007-01-07 04:01:07 · answer #7 · answered by Kutty_21 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The question you posed is a difficult one....some may can nit pick because I am combing the Middle East colonial and post independence period to together.
If the USA invaded France and installed a pro USA puppet government over the Iraq dispute it would strengthen our pro American allies and frighten those not with us in the region.
When we took out the Iraqi regime we took down the biggest military power in the Middle East, that increased the regional power of Syria and Iran....Iraqi adversaries...so American action strengthen Iran's position.....not weakened it
When you take a regime by military means you stay involved for decades to guide them to replace their old system..because you have to build new institution to make sure the new systems takes hold....we still have troops in Japan...and only gave them the rest of their land back only in the mid 70's from WW2.....It was only in 1992 that we gave up allied rights to Germany from WW2
Being in Iraq offered military bases to the USA and a new pro-western Iraq to hold back Iran influence
What Mr Ritter does not say is why the Middle East has had constant conflicts for 90 years
90 years ago the Ottoman Empire crumbled after ruling the Middle East for centuries.......this destroyed the regional balance...the trade routes and centers that had been around for centuries
It would be like all the states west of the Mississippi became an independent country....passport needed to visit...maybe the east side of the USA bans the west side of the USA computers so they can sell and make their own......and the Olympics would be interesting...the NFL, baseball, basketball leagues divided by country.....some people would want the old unified USA back.
After the Roman Empire collapsed it took 1500 years to get a regional stable organization; the European Union. Until WW2 European nations fought for 500 years to rule the land mass and replace the old Roman system....
The Soviet threat caused the western European nation to side with America....and quit their regional conflicts....and cooperate regionally and form the economic and political union.
When the Soviet Union dissolved....it went smoothly...because the European Union offered a regional template....if the East European did not try to settle old animosities, change to a market economy and accept democratic rule they could join....it prevent many old problems.....Yugoslavia outside the Soviet orbit fell into conflict because they did not have a template to stop the old feuds...and had many conflicts...so we bombed and help divide the country with other European countries
The Middle East is still adjusting from the fall of the Ottoman Empire...it will be decades maybe centuries for a new power structure to work out...it why Syria will not leave Lebanon alone...in the old Ottoman rule Syria controlled Lebanon but Britain divided it into two countries in the 1920's....Syria wants it old status and trade routes back...Jordan only gave up its claim to Palestine in 1974 and to Israel in 1994
When the Ottoman Empire fell the League of Nations offered the Kurds their own homeland.......the Arab tribes refuses so the land went to Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey. BTW the Kurds are largest ethnic group in the world without a homeland
As the Middle east countries jockey around for their old status under the Ottoman Empire they use Kurds in the neighbors land to cause discontent or insurgent operations to keep their neighbor weak or distracted with internal discontent.....this why the Middle East is so unstable.....plus you have the Palestinian/Israel issue...the issue of modern western ideas of democracies. capital markets against the old system of clan rule
When we invaded Iraq we had the 20%Kurds population on our side...but not the Shiite south which is 60% of the population.... and their religious headquarter is in Iran (Qom)....guess what Iran did......took the high oil prices money and funded the Shiite insurgency to prevent a return of Sunni 20% population to rule in Iran....because Sunni ruled Iraq fought Shiite Iran for eight years in the 80's..............
The only true solution is to solve the Kurd dispute in the region, get Syria to give up their desire for Lebanon...and let the Palestinian and Israel settle their........
2007-01-07 04:38:13 · answer #8 · answered by Jonathan L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, he is attempting to try something he has already tried and failed miserably!
The Generals are not for it, we are going to have significant increases in KIA's and deficit spending!
I agree with the Democrats! Start pulling them out. It has been 4 years and it is time they sink or swim! As long as we are there, we are an issue as well with the population as most do not have a very high opinion of the US!
The generals have also concluded that Iraq is not winnable militarily and a political solution needs to be reached!
2007-01-07 03:55:59 · answer #9 · answered by cantcu 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No.Because he is fighting Iraqi people who refused to be occupied by US troops.He will win only when he admits that his war in Iraq was wrong and let Iraqi people decide his future without his idiot interference.
2007-01-07 04:16:00 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋